Map Size Thread

[Ryan]

kjacked and Choco, give this sh*t a rest already. We're all growing tired out this petty little argument you two are having. Shut up and move along already. Final warning.

[Magic_Al]

Now - Magics great analysis seems to hold up in lower elevation parts of the map, not in the more northern areas though. Ie the 1m per pixel map

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8949[email protected]/9...in/photostream/

 

tallies well with the tennis court and road widths in the SW of the map. Trying the same near the northern part shows the elevation DOES make a slight difference. Ie the 5 lane wide highway which should be 25 pixels across, is actually 30 pixels. This makes sense as that part is closer to the POV of the 'camera'.

Because the lanes are 6m. 5x6=30. F4t4l1ty deserves credit. Only 70 posts in history but they're quality.

[josephene123]

Now - Magics great analysis seems to hold up in lower elevation parts of the map, not in the more northern areas though. Ie the 1m per pixel map

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9...in/photostream/

 

tallies well with the tennis court and road widths in the SW of the map. Trying the same near the northern part shows the elevation DOES make a slight difference. Ie the 5 lane wide highway which should be 25 pixels across, is actually 30 pixels. This makes sense as that part is closer to the POV of the 'camera'.

Because the lanes are 6m. 5x6=30. F4t4l1ty deserves credit. Only 70 posts in history but they're quality.

I'm not following any of this. What does that mean? Is your scale correct only on the lower elevation areas?

[wwinterj]

 

I BEGG SOMEONE TO TELL ME answer 2 things....

1) is Los Santos bigger Than Liberty City?

2) If yes....what are people still arguing about then?

I doubt we will ever know the true size of Los Santos without playing the game. We can guess sure but that's all it really is. I'm still not convinced and believe Los Santos looks small but that could and possibly will change once I play the game and take in the scale of things. It's hard to do that from screens and a small bit of the map.

[Magic_Al]

Now - Magics great analysis seems to hold up in lower elevation parts of the map, not in the more northern areas though. Ie the 1m per pixel map

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9...in/photostream/

 

tallies well with the tennis court and road widths in the SW of the map. Trying the same near the northern part shows the elevation DOES make a slight difference. Ie the 5 lane wide highway which should be 25 pixels across, is actually 30 pixels. This makes sense as that part is closer to the POV of the 'camera'.

Because the lanes are 6m. 5x6=30. F4t4l1ty deserves credit. Only 70 posts in history but they're quality.

I'm not following any of this. What does that mean? Is your scale correct only on the lower elevation areas?

I believe elevation is a smaller contributor to error than the low resolution of the blueprint images. Each pixel scales to over 100 square meters. Despite distortion due to elevation and depth of field in the gameplay images, a photomontage of the top-down views line up with the blueprint just fine at the street grid level of detail. Because the tennis court can be accurately positioned in a photomontage that covers a large area, it's not a hard problem: the tennis court lines up with the screenshots, the screenshots fit together into a montage, and therefore the tennis court tells you how big the montage of screenshots is. The montage you know the size of then lines up with the streets of the blueprint, and that tells you how big the blueprint is. Elevation never comes into it, because an example of elevation distortion such as the pixel width of the street going downhill past Michael's house isn't even referred to. I already have the scale from the tennis court, so at the much lower detail level of the street grid, I only need all the street intersections to line up and I don't need to worry about street width.

[Changnesia]

I haven't read any of this thread. seems like a lot of people have put in good work but there is still debate. I've been browsing for a while, looking at the proposed maps and scales. Here is my thought (it could be meaningless or already thought of and worked out):

 

We've been given the distance of hole 3 on the golf course from tee to pin: 168 yards or approximately 154.5 meters. We've also been given a look at the layout of the hole on Michael's minimap while he's golfing. Now, i can't seem to locate this hole on the aerial view of the course, seems like it might be just off camera. Has anyone tried to scale down that minimap and place it on the aerial view of the map, thus giving us an at least approximate scaled unit of measure to measure the city?

 

 

First Post

Edited August 8, 2013 by Changnesia

[josephene123]

Now - Magics great analysis seems to hold up in lower elevation parts of the map, not in the more northern areas though. Ie the 1m per pixel map

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9...in/photostream/

 

tallies well with the tennis court and road widths in the SW of the map. Trying the same near the northern part shows the elevation DOES make a slight difference. Ie the 5 lane wide highway which should be 25 pixels across, is actually 30 pixels. This makes sense as that part is closer to the POV of the 'camera'.

Because the lanes are 6m. 5x6=30. F4t4l1ty deserves credit. Only 70 posts in history but they're quality.

I'm not following any of this. What does that mean? Is your scale correct only on the lower elevation areas?

I believe elevation is a smaller contributor to error than the low resolution of the blueprint images. Each pixel scales to over 100 square meters. Despite distortion due to elevation and depth of field in the gameplay images, a photomontage of the top-down views line up with the blueprint just fine at the street grid level of detail. Because the tennis court can be accurately positioned in a photomontage that covers a large area, it's not a hard problem: the tennis court lines up with the screenshots, the screenshots fit together into a montage, and therefore the tennis court tells you how big the montage of screenshots is. The montage you know the size of then lines up with the streets of the blueprint, and that tells you how big the blueprint is. Elevation never comes into it, because an example of elevation distortion such as the pixel width of the street going downhill past Michael's house isn't even referred to. I already have the scale from the tennis court, so at the much lower detail level of the street grid, I only need all the street intersections to line up and I don't need to worry about street width.

So you're not in any agreement with Brian.?

[brian.]

Magic Al. That screenshot depicts 5 meter wide lanes, and 5 meter wide sidewalk. Something is wrong with the trainer or something else, I am telling you, that road is 5 meters per lane there, and on the sidewalk.

 

If I absolutely must grab the file and measure it directly with a screen, I will, but I would really prefer not to. Actually, I won't do it unless someone who uses gims or whatever makes an OBJ for me

 

If you look in the gameplay trailer, and look at that mountain looking down on it in the first few moments (0:25 to like 0:29), that's an example of how perspective is causing this.

 

If you load up IV and stand under tall buildings and look up, it shows it there as well, at a different extreme, while the mountain is looking down, like the blueprint probably was - screenshot the "whole map" that way, and crop out only the "south west/lower left" portion of the image, it can probably cause it.

 

i know for a fact that my image is correct when it comes to the red highlighted block - there is no dispute to that, it's correct 210 meters, and that being the case and me agreeing with the tennis court area's scale, then there is major discrepancy, perspective is the only explanation I can think of.

 

edit, yes, precisely this is why the measurements are different. They did not want us to know before the game comes out else why would they do a blueprint with perspective?

 

Every blue is 20 meters. Neither image has changed aside from the fov. One has no perspective at all, which we expect from a blueprint mentally, and the other has deep perspective - as we get in IV when looking up or down, and V as we see from downward facing shots in gameplay trailer

 

Edited August 8, 2013 by brian.

[Magic_Al]

Magic Al. That screenshot depicts 5 meter wide lanes, and 5 meter wide sidewalk. Something is wrong with the trainer or something else, I am telling you, that road is 5 meters per lane there, and on the sidewalk.

 

If I absolutely must grab the file and measure it directly with a screen, I will, but I would really prefer not to. Actually, I won't do it unless someone who uses gims or whatever makes an OBJ for me

 

If you look in the gameplay trailer, and look at that mountain looking down on it in the first few moments (0:25 to like 0:29), that's an example of how perspective is causing this.

 

If you load up IV and stand under tall buildings and look up, it shows it there as well, at a different extreme, while the mountain is looking down, like the blueprint probably was - screenshot the "whole map" that way, and crop out only the "south west/lower left" portion of the image, it can probably cause it.

 

i know for a fact that my image is correct when it comes to the red highlighted block - there is no dispute to that, it's correct 210 meters, and that being the case and me agreeing with the tennis court area's scale, then there is major discrepancy, perspective is the only explanation I can think of.

You've probably seen this rendering of GTAIV by lxr. The street outlines are faint but if you bump up the contrast you can see them, and including the outlines they show the reality of 6m lanes. If you try to exclude the outlines from the pixel count so there are 10 pixels between lines on a two-lane street, you realize that's wrong when looking at a four-lane street (like Kunzite) that you have to include the outlines for the math to work out (4 lanes = 24 pixels).

[brian.]

The 4 lane road he says is 24 meters, is only 20 meters wide. Either the game lies and adds a meter every 5 to make the game world/stats/etc "more exciting for the player", or the trainer is wrong, or something else like that, because the roads and sidewalks in those screens are the exact same size as the ones in every other GTA game, I have measured MANY of them personally, I just do not still have all the tools and am not going to install them all again just to check what I already checked in 2008 or 2009 or whatever

 

Trust me, something is off about the trainer, because as far as "actual game world map size" goes - in a consistent manner to other gta games, in a manner of "the actual files measured in 3d modeling software", those are majority 5 meter lanes and sidewalks, in the screenshots, and in the game overall.

 

And in your post, the render proves my point. It is an OUTLINE render, not an INLINE render.

 

You said if you take off the outlines, you get 10px, right? Correct, 10 meter wide road.

 

And if you take off the lines, you can't get your 24 meters? Exactly. because it's not 24 meters for 4 lanes. It's 20 - and it could be 24 to 30 (2 to 5 extra each side) depending on how the side of the road is, outside of the traffic lanes/up where sidewalk would be etc

 

edit: that's all not important now - Al, there it is - If in fact at least some of those are indeed 6 meter roads and such (one of them really does look wider than its sidewalk ), then it puts us 20% more on the roads. If there is a 40% between us, and we fall in the middle of it you go down 20% and I go up 20% - map must be in the middle of our estimates then?

Edited August 8, 2013 by brian.

[Magic_Al]

 

The 4 lane road he says is 24 meters, is only 20 meters wide. Either the game lies and adds a meter every 5 to make the game world/stats/etc "more exciting for the player", or the trainer is wrong, or something else like that, because the roads and sidewalks in those screens are the exact same size as the ones in every other GTA game, I have measured MANY of them personally, I just do not still have all the tools and am not going to install them all again just to check what I already checked in 2008 or 2009 or whatever

 

Trust me, something is off about the trainer, because as far as "actual game world map size" goes - in a consistent manner to other gta games, in a manner of "the actual files measured in 3d modeling software", those are majority 5 meter lanes and sidewalks, in the screenshots, and in the game overall.

 

And in your post, the render proves my point. It is an OUTLINE render, not an INLINE render.

 

You said if you take off the outlines, you get 10px, right? Correct, 10 meter wide road.

 

And if you take off the lines, you can't get your 24 meters? Exactly. because it's not 24 meters for 4 lanes. It's 20 - and it could be 24 to 30 (2 to 5 extra each side) depending on how the side of the road is, outside of the traffic lanes/up where sidewalk would be etc

 

edit: that's all not important now - Al, there it is - If in fact at least some of those are indeed 6 meter roads and such (one of them really does look wider than its sidewalk ), then it puts us 20% more on the roads. If there is a 40% between us, and we fall in the middle of it you go down 20% and I go up 20% - map must be in the middle of our estimates then?

I was stuck on the 5m thing for a while, but 6m makes total sense when you realize GTAIV needed to make on-street parking work everywhere, which does not work in previous GTAs due to narrow streets. In older GTAs if there's on-street parking there's an extra lane for it. In GTAIV, with few exceptions such as the Broker Bridge that actually does have 5m lanes, you can park on the side of most (12m) streets and traffic can get around you easily.

 

No parking:

 

No problem:

 

I don't think I'm 20% wrong.

[brian.]

The lane on the right is 6, maybe even 7 meters, Magic (the previously touched on changes they make to them to suit their uses). The lane on the left is 5, like usual.

 

You can call it 22 meters for some 4 lanes. And that still makes my estimate within 10 percent, since I base them as "20" - but your example shows more disparity - that one lane is widened, the rest of the street model (the other lane, the sidewalks) are 5 meters wide.

 

Not to mention in the giant image, each and every level of zoom is flawed at lining up to the next it is nested in, making it flaw on-fold of itself.

 

Like I say, we're off with an extra 20%.

 

This is how it happened:

 

Edited August 8, 2013 by brian.

[AmoebaJuice]

The only thing that was confirmed was that all the map is bigger than IV, SA, RDR combined with room to spare.

 

It's anyones guess how big it actually is, people assume its the size of those three combined, when in actually fact the statement clearly suggests it's bigger.

This is 100 percent true.

[idlewood]

There has been som talks about the size of the desert area in GTA V. Which made me thinking about SA. The theory I have is about map size in general and the desert area in particular. It's all about perceived size. Let's take the desert area in SA as an example. When you were out there in the middle of the desert you could really feel that you were a great distance away from civilization. Truth is the distance was not that big actually.

I think the reason for the "I'm in the middle of nowhere"-feeling was mainly because of the draw distance. You couldn't see anything else than desert and rocks. Imagine if you could see the skyline of San Fierro when you were standing in the desert. That would've taken away that great feeling of how big SA felt.

 

In GTA V the draw distance will apparently be a lot greater. I.M.O. this calls for a lot bigger size of the map (and the desert). On the fanmade maps the desert is quite small and it seems like we will be able to see some forests, lakes and the mountains surrounding Los Santos from there. One point of having a diversified world is that you should be able to "travel" to different kinds of vegetation and (i.m.o.) get the feeling you had in SA of being far away from anything else. I find it hard to believe that R* will take away that feeling by not making the different areas (forests, desert, lakes, villages etc.) in parity with the draw distance.

 

With that said. I'm convinced that the map size will be big enough for most of us, no matter the size in square miles.

[brian.]

You are indeed correct idlewood, I've touched on this many occasions. Indeed, it is the distance fogging that makes SA seem so huge, and the long distance that makes IV feel much smaller than it would have in SA. V will also have a very wide FOV, and it will make the whole scene seem much larger too, and counteract the effects of longer more realistic view distances.

[Darth Mike]

 

There has been som talks about the size of the desert area in GTA V. Which made me thinking about SA. The theory I have is about map size in general and the desert area in particular. It's all about perceived size. Let's take the desert area in SA as an example. When you were out there in the middle of the desert you could really feel that you were a great distance away from civilization. Truth is the distance was not that big actually.

I think the reason for the "I'm in the middle of nowhere"-feeling was mainly because of the draw distance. You couldn't see anything else than desert and rocks. Imagine if you could see the skyline of San Fierro when you were standing in the desert. That would've taken away that great feeling of how big SA felt.

 

In GTA V the draw distance will apparently be a lot greater. I.M.O. this calls for a lot bigger size of the map (and the desert). On the fanmade maps the desert is quite small and it seems like we will be able to see some forests, lakes and the mountains surrounding Los Santos from there. One point of having a diversified world is that you should be able to "travel" to different kinds of vegetation and (i.m.o.) get the feeling you had in SA of being far away from anything else. I find it hard to believe that R* will take away that feeling by not making the different areas (forests, desert, lakes, villages etc.) in parity with the draw distance.

 

With that said. I'm convinced that the map size will be big enough for most of us, no matter the size in square miles.

Good point.

I've said something like that in the Multiple Towns thread.

The map has to be much bigger than what several people think.

Watching trailers and screenshots, I have the feeling of a Liberty city with (too) mountains. I don't see a world like GTA San Andreas.

I don't know if Rockstar lies and there are other cities, but it's sure that there are other towns and a desert, which requires to be made in a specific way in order to give the feeling of being on it.

[_Kindled_]

Even in Al's estimate it is, which I think is the largest but I might be wrong.

kjacked's is the largest.

 

I highly doubt that's to scale.

[Toshio_maxoS]

Even in Al's estimate it is, which I think is the largest but I might be wrong.

kjacked's is the largest.

 

I highly doubt that's to scale.

Yup, this is pretty fail since we know that Liberty City has the same size as Los Santos,

and the whole word is 4-5 times bigger then Liberty City and 2-3 times bigger then GTA San Andreas.

[eee333]

Even in Al's estimate it is, which I think is the largest but I might be wrong.

kjacked's is the largest.

 

I highly doubt that's to scale.

I think that kjacked said a few pages back that this pic is scaled to a 1 mile long race track, and that he reconsidered that afterwards and he made an other resealed image to a 600 meter race track.

 

not entirely sure, check back a few pages if things have changed.

[Eutyphro]

Indeed, it is the distance fogging that makes SA seem so huge

Well, I also think that it was just really huge back then... You guys are defining 'huge' according to todays standards, which isn't all that fair. Videogames changed a lot through all those years (just look at the difference in graphics and physics..). Creating worlds that size (or way bigger) has become increasingly common since then. Discs can hold a lot more information these days.. SA might be bigger than V will be compared to it's open world competitors in it's day. But someone who knows more about gaming than me might tell more about that.

 

And now someone will come up with massive games with no quality like Just Cause or True Crime but they are irrelevant. Skyrim, that's a relevant comparison in terms of quality. It has the same sort of critical reception as GTA IV. Maybe Watchdogs will be such a game. If there is an open world game from 2004 that is anywhere near the quality and size of San Andreas then I would be delighted to hear about it.

[PoliceFarm]

There has been som talks about the size of the desert area in GTA V. Which made me thinking about SA. The theory I have is about map size in general and the desert area in particular. It's all about perceived size. Let's take the desert area in SA as an example. When you were out there in the middle of the desert you could really feel that you were a great distance away from civilization. Truth is the distance was not that big actually.

I think the reason for the "I'm in the middle of nowhere"-feeling was mainly because of the draw distance. You couldn't see anything else than desert and rocks. Imagine if you could see the skyline of San Fierro when you were standing in the desert. That would've taken away that great feeling of how big SA felt.

 

In GTA V the draw distance will apparently be a lot greater. I.M.O. this calls for a lot bigger size of the map (and the desert). On the fanmade maps the desert is quite small and it seems like we will be able to see some forests, lakes and the mountains surrounding Los Santos from there. One point of having a diversified world is that you should be able to "travel" to different kinds of vegetation and (i.m.o.) get the feeling you had in SA of being far away from anything else. I find it hard to believe that R* will take away that feeling by not making the different areas (forests, desert, lakes, villages etc.) in parity with the draw distance.

 

With that said. I'm convinced that the map size will be big enough for most of us, no matter the size in square miles.

Good point.

I've said something like that in the Multiple Towns thread.

The map has to be much bigger than what several people think.

Watching trailers and screenshots, I have the feeling of a Liberty city with (too) mountains. I don't see a world like GTA San Andreas.

I don't know if Rockstar lies and there are other cities, but it's sure that there are other towns and a desert, which requires to be made in a specific way in order to give the feeling of being on it.

There's no way to properly judge how well they'll be able to create that sense of distant places, until we get to play for ourselves, especially since we have so many aerial shots to dwell on. Even with a higher draw distance, SA can still feel like differing places are far away, but aerial shots don't give that sense at all.

[josephene123]

Even in Al's estimate it is, which I think is the largest but I might be wrong.

kjacked's is the largest.

 

I highly doubt that's to scale.

That is the point. kjacked's scale is based on the whole horse track being one mile and the straights being around 600-800m, which would give this scale

[florisinfernus]

the problem i had with him is the fact that he lies. he made the claim he has never said los santos was smaller than liberty city.

 

 

Give us a link to that. Oh, that's right - you can't because that's a lie.

 

They are great comparisons but I find it hard to really imagine just how big Los Santos is gonna be.

 

What do you think? Same size as Liberty City or much bigger? I can't tell.

 

I figure the city area of Los Santos is the size of Alderney and Algonquin combined or smaller.

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtop...st&p=1061735279

[Darth Mike]

 

There has been som talks about the size of the desert area in GTA V. Which made me thinking about SA. The theory I have is about map size in general and the desert area in particular. It's all about perceived size. Let's take the desert area in SA as an example. When you were out there in the middle of the desert you could really feel that you were a great distance away from civilization. Truth is the distance was not that big actually.

I think the reason for the "I'm in the middle of nowhere"-feeling was mainly because of the draw distance. You couldn't see anything else than desert and rocks. Imagine if you could see the skyline of San Fierro when you were standing in the desert. That would've taken away that great feeling of how big SA felt.

 

In GTA V the draw distance will apparently be a lot greater. I.M.O. this calls for a lot bigger size of the map (and the desert). On the fanmade maps the desert is quite small and it seems like we will be able to see some forests, lakes and the mountains surrounding Los Santos from there. One point of having a diversified world is that you should be able to "travel" to different kinds of vegetation and (i.m.o.) get the feeling you had in SA of being far away from anything else. I find it hard to believe that R* will take away that feeling by not making the different areas (forests, desert, lakes, villages etc.) in parity with the draw distance.

 

With that said. I'm convinced that the map size will be big enough for most of us, no matter the size in square miles.

Good point.

I've said something like that in the Multiple Towns thread.

The map has to be much bigger than what several people think.

Watching trailers and screenshots, I have the feeling of a Liberty city with (too) mountains. I don't see a world like GTA San Andreas.

I don't know if Rockstar lies and there are other cities, but it's sure that there are other towns and a desert, which requires to be made in a specific way in order to give the feeling of being on it.

There's no way to properly judge how well they'll be able to create that sense of distant places, until we get to play for ourselves, especially since we have so many aerial shots to dwell on. Even with a higher draw distance, SA can still feel like differing places are far away, but aerial shots don't give that sense at all.

 

Of course, I don't ask to Rockstar to make a huge desert that aircrafts cannot even see its boundaries. But I think that when our character will walk on the desert, we need to feel we are on the desert.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Darth Mike

[Magic_Al]

 

The lane on the right is 6, maybe even 7 meters, Magic (the previously touched on changes they make to them to suit their uses). The lane on the left is 5, like usual.

Those lanes look equal on both sides to me.

 

I think it's just the case that they changed to a 6m lane standard in GTAIV, so there could be vehicles parked on almost any street. A 12m street is noticeably bigger than a 10m street and it's not hard to see actually.

[Eutyphro]

 

There's no way to properly judge how well they'll be able to create that sense of distant places, until we get to play for ourselves, especially since we have so many aerial shots to dwell on. Even with a higher draw distance, SA can still feel like differing places are far away, but aerial shots don't give that sense at all.

Well, it doesn't give that sense because it has a very diverse amount of landcapes all done in a kind of cartoonish way, and from high up that makes it look like madurodam ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madurodam ). This is exactly the reason why R* has not repeated this method of creating so much different landscapes, but have chosen a more limited amount of landcapes done better and bigger.

 

Edit: And for sake of being clear: anyone can easily demonstrate how thoroughly cartoonish GTA SA is, I still love it to death. But it is good that the series is moving forward.

Edited August 8, 2013 by gtaxpert

[Choco Taco]

the problem i had with him is the fact that he lies. he made the claim he has never said los santos was smaller than liberty city.

 

 

Give us a link to that. Oh, that's right - you can't because that's a lie.

 

They are great comparisons but I find it hard to really imagine just how big Los Santos is gonna be.

 

What do you think? Same size as Liberty City or much bigger? I can't tell.

 

I figure the city area of Los Santos is the size of Alderney and Algonquin combined or smaller.

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtop...st&p=1061735279

Thanks.

 

Nobody has provided the link in which I supposedly claimed that I've never said Los Santos is smaller than Liberty City. The link doesn't exist because that was a lie.

[florisinfernus]

Good. Now all of that is cleared up everybody can be best buddes again? Have you asked Kjacked out yet? You guys seem very obsessed with each other and might make a great romantic pair. You even save pictures of him shirtless flexing his muscles to your computer. So cute!

 

Sorry mods. Just a little joke

 

On topic: Great work magic_al and others. And on the San Andreas comparison: that game is 9 years old, and it is still a standard by which other games are compared! Just that proves how amazing it was.

[Boss7dm]

 

 

 

who did this shi*?

[josephene123]

I figure that there will definitely be that distant feel outside of LS because so much of the map is made up of mountains blocking your view, unless of course you're in a plane or helicopter