Map Size Thread

[Ferocious Banger]

 

FB I strongly doubt that LS is 6 sq miles.

 

For one , the recent CVG interview mentioned they saw a  '180 to 220 degree' view of the map and the city was approximately 1/3 of this.

 

The city at most makes up for 1/6 of the map..at the very most. We know as a certainty that the land area of V is not larger than 21, 22 sq miles.

 

The city will take up no more than 3.5 sq miles.

If that was the case, hen the distance between the bridge and CBD must be 0.6 miles amd the East-West boundaries get extended only by 0.2 miles each.

 

Anyways, the city is larger than 2 sq miles!

[GKP]

LS is NOT as large as LC WITH the water, thats surely known by everyone here !

 

The city is NOT going to be as large as 1/4 of the map !

 

Skillz , a 1/3 of the area they saw they meant....eg the 180 - 220 degree

 

 

 

CVG in their earlier audio mentioned it being 1/8 to 1/10 of the map .

[kesta195]

LS is NOT as large as LC WITH the water, thats surely known by everyone here !

There is nothing to know. We don't know if they included water in the LC/LS comparison. We can only speculate, and will only know when R* tells us or we get the game.

[GKP]

We DO know Kesta.

 

 

If the city was 1/8 to 1/10 - we sure as f*ck are not getting a 48 - 60 sq mile map. (8 times * 6, 6 times 10 water incl of LC incl).

 

If the city was 1/6 even ..we wont get 36 sq miles of land.

 

Were getting 21/22 sq miles...or 3.5 times RDR - UNLESS...they are included non explorable parts of RDR.

[œaœa]

LS is NOT as large as LC WITH the water, thats surely known by everyone here !

 

The city is NOT going to be as large as 1/4 of the map !

 

Skillz , a 1/3 of the area they saw they meant....eg the 180 - 220 degree

 

 

 

CVG in their earlier audio mentioned it being 1/8 to 1/10 of the map .

I want you to do something for me and show me your copy of V. You know the game so well.

[GTAfan786]

Size of LS ( partially )

 

 

From Observatory to Downtown:

 

 

 

Before the line goes up abruptly as it nears the Observatory, in the consistent line, ~four US Bank Towers ( 310 m ) can be fitted approximately.

 

That is 0.812 mile.

 

Then as the hill comes in, pythagoras theorem had to be applied, twice.

 

The adjacent to the first right angled triangle is 289 meters. The second right angled triangle ( which ends at the observatory ), has its adjacent as 461.3 meters/

 

461.3+289+1308 = 2058.3 m.

 

That is 2.058 kilometers.

 

In other words, ~1.278 miles from the US Bank Tower to the Observatory.

 

 

 

From East ( what we have seen ) to West ( what we can see/have seen ):

 

 

I know the the picture is skewed. But its the best we've got yet.

 

As you can see, more than 8 but lesser than 9 US Bank Towers can be fitted across; That is - (8*310) + 208.988765 m.

 

That is 2.689 kilometers.

 

In other words, 1.67 miles.

 

If the map was only between the Observatory and downtown ( N to S ) and what we can see from East to West,

 

Then the size would be:

 

2.13 sq miles.

 

Assuming the distance between Downtown and and the bridge is another 1.2 miles and if somehow we get another mile to play with over at East LS and west LS combined, we'd get:

 

6.08 sq miles, which is about the size of Liberty City including water.

 

6.08 sq mile of LS alone is f*cking amazing. It also seems an accurate calculation, i don't know why GKP keeps insisting otherwise. He thinks he works for rockstar or something.

[Ferocious Banger]

6.08 square miles or not, it is pretty much a fact that the time it takes to go around the map will be much more than a trip around that size(s) IRL (Slower vehicles and the map layout).

[GKP]

LS is NOT as large as LC WITH the water, thats surely known by everyone here !

 

The city is NOT going to be as large as 1/4 of the map !

 

Skillz , a 1/3 of the area they saw they meant....eg the 180 - 220 degree

 

 

 

CVG in their earlier audio mentioned it being 1/8 to 1/10 of the map .

I want you to do something for me and show me your copy of V. You know the game so well.

Your one dumb MF if you cant understand the logic of my post.

 

A city 1/8 to 1/10 means we ARE NOT getting a 6 sq mile city. Remember 21 sq miles of land. Do the maths.

[skillz7855]

I don't understand whats so bad about a City the size of all of RDR

[kesta195]

We DO know Kesta.

 

 

If the city was 1/8 to 1/10 - we sure as f*ck are not getting a 48 - 60 sq mile map.

 

If the city was 1/6 even ..we wont get 36 sq miles of land.

 

Were getting 21/22 sq miles...or 3.5 times RDR - UNLESS...they are included non explorable parts of RDR.

Again, the percentage of the map the city covers have all been estimates so far. The most recent of which was again from CVG saying that LS covered between 25-30% of the map. If Ferocious Banger is right and the city is 6sq miles, and we know that the entire map is about 22 sq miles, 6 x 4 is 24sq miles (upper boundary), 6 x 3 is 18 sq miles (lower boundary) so it checks out. Depends which estimate you want to believe.

[GKP]

Kesta - We KNOW the map is not 1/3 city..thats EXTREMELY obvious from the expanse of countryside we have seen.

[dewan2000]

Suburbs in the screenshots ? Where ? I must have missed something, because I looked hard and saw NONE. I really DON'T think so. I have seen clusters of homes tucked away in the hills, very nice houses and some mansions (Michael's namely), but I have not seen any true suburban area in the screenshots at all.

 

If Rockstar are saving it for later, then great, I'm very glad to be wrong. Until then, I see no true suburban areas in Los Santos in GTA V, judging from these screenshots.

 

 

Personally, having huge suburbs and such on the scale of LA would get incredibly boring. I dont understand why all you why stupid suburbs soo bad. So you can see copy and pasted houes every block or so where you cant do anything with them? Having variety in the city is much more interesting.

 

I think some of you guys put your expectations up way to high. There is only soo much this current gen of systems can do. Im sure they chose this city size for personal, and technical choice. If they made a larger city im sure they would have to sacrifice some in the visual and draw distance area's and then people would be sitting here bickering about how the visuals look no better than GTA 4.

[kesta195]

Kesta - We KNOW the map is not 1/3 city..thats EXTREMELY obvious from the expanse of countryside we have seen.

Ok, but 1/10 seems to small to me. But that's just me. Also spending quite a lot of time on the mapping thread has made me realise that the countryside is not quite as big as it first seemed. Basically you have the alamo sea, two large mountains, some smaller mountains and that's it. But we haven't seen the whole countryside, much like we haven't seen the whole city (but we have seen most of it).

[GKP]

I think the map will be about 1/6...aesthetically that would make sense in a way.

 

1/10 would be overkill on country.

[G D]

You people went full super retard for arguing with GKP.

Can't you intelligent people realize this guy is having a laugh at you?

 

 

Don't feed the trolls.

 

 

But if you insist, have it your way.

 

 

PS: If you do it to let people who are actually curious about the size, like Ferocious Banger did. Then go as you wish, but not spamming with insignificant posts.

[GKP]

Im not having a laugh at anyone. Im not trolling, I dont think anyone here would say I am either.

[AceHigh11]

Im not having a laugh at anyone. Im not trolling, I dont think anyone here would say I am either.

I agree. You're just stubborn, very critical and demanding.

 

Hey, see it as a compliment!

[GKP]

Those traits serve me well in Recruitment.

 

(thats my job, not in recruiting for the 'small city camp' )

[SuccessPastaTime]

 

Looks kind of like suburbs to me, don't know how much there is of this, but I think there will be some areas, few if any.

 

I would like suburbs too, like where Mikhail lived in IV, but even if it's out, I'm still going to happy with what I've seen.

[kesta195]

BTW the quote 'The Vinewood sign is visible from every corner of the city' pretty much completely rules out an SF valley.

[Official General]

 

Suburbs in the screenshots ? Where ? I must have missed something, because I looked hard and saw NONE. I really DON'T think so. I have seen clusters of homes tucked away in the hills, very nice houses and some mansions (Michael's namely), but I have not seen any true suburban area in the screenshots at all.

 

If Rockstar are saving it for later, then great, I'm very glad to be wrong. Until then, I see no true suburban areas in Los Santos in GTA V, judging from these screenshots.

 

 

Personally, having huge suburbs and such on the scale of LA would get incredibly boring. I dont understand why all you why stupid suburbs soo bad. So you can see copy and pasted houes every block or so where you cant do anything with them? Having variety in the city is much more interesting.

 

I think some of you guys put your expectations up way to high. There is only soo much this current gen of systems can do. Im sure they chose this city size for personal, and technical choice. If they made a larger city im sure they would have to sacrifice some in the visual and draw distance area's and then people would be sitting here bickering about how the visuals look no better than GTA 4.

Man, are you really that stupid ? Or maybe you just choose to be ignorant like many members of the RDF on here.

 

Who the f**k said they wanted copy and pasted blocks in GTA V's Los Santos ? NO ONE. So stop peddling that stupid nonsense that nobody said in the f**king first place. We just want suburbs, because LA is mostly made up of suburban sprawl, just like New York City is made up densely packed skycrapers as seen in Liberty City. How hard is that to understand ??

 

You talk about variety and making the city more interesting, well newsflash buddy, that is why we are here discussing this subject, we want Los Santos to be a very big city to have more of a chance of providing that variety, just like it's real life counterpart LA. We want a dense, busy downtown area, we want working-class residential districts, we want the ghettos, the industrial areas, the port areas, we want wealthy areas and we want the suburbs (LA is made up mostly of sprawling suburbs). If your thick skull actually read closely what we were talking about, you would have had some idea of why we want "stupid" suburbs, and that it actually makes a great deal of sense. We did not request more suburbs to make the game look pretty, we requested it to reflect it's re-creation of LA in the best and most realistic way possible that current console technology can allow.

 

Don't give me that bullsh*t about the current consoles cannot do it, of course they can. If the map is gonna be bigger than GTA IV, RDR and SA combined, then please tell how the f**k Rockstar cannot make LS a bigger place ? I mean look at the mountains and countryside. Of course it can be done, don't talk rubbish.

[UrbanTheEmcee]

Congrats to the graduating RDF recruits.

 

 

You gotta love the classics.

[SuccessPastaTime]

 

Suburbs in the screenshots ? Where ? I must have missed something, because I looked hard and saw NONE. I really DON'T think so. I have seen clusters of homes tucked away in the hills, very nice houses and some mansions (Michael's namely), but I have not seen any true suburban area in the screenshots at all.

 

If Rockstar are saving it for later, then great, I'm very glad to be wrong. Until then, I see no true suburban areas in Los Santos in GTA V, judging from these screenshots.

 

 

Personally, having huge suburbs and such on the scale of LA would get incredibly boring. I dont understand why all you why stupid suburbs soo bad. So you can see copy and pasted houes every block or so where you cant do anything with them? Having variety in the city is much more interesting.

 

I think some of you guys put your expectations up way to high. There is only soo much this current gen of systems can do. Im sure they chose this city size for personal, and technical choice. If they made a larger city im sure they would have to sacrifice some in the visual and draw distance area's and then people would be sitting here bickering about how the visuals look no better than GTA 4.

Man, are you really that stupid ? Or maybe you just choose to be ignorant like many members of the RDF on here.

 

Who the f**k said they wanted copy and pasted blocks in GTA V's Los Santos ? NO ONE. So stop peddling that stupid nonsense that nobody said in the f**king first place. We just want suburbs, because LA is mostly made up of suburban sprawl, just like New York City is made up densely packed skycrapers as seen in Liberty City. How hard is that to understand ??

 

You talk about variety and making the city more interesting, well newsflash buddy, that is why we are here discussing this subject, we want Los Santos to be a very big city to have more of a chance of providing that variety, just like it's real life counterpart LA. We want a dense, busy downtown area, we want working-class residential districts, we want the ghettos, the industrial areas, the port areas, we want wealthy areas and we want the suburbs (LA is made up mostly of sprawling suburbs). If your thick skull actually read closely what we were talking about, you would have had some idea of why we want "stupid" suburbs, and that it actually makes a great deal of sense. We did not request more suburbs to make the game look pretty, we requested it to reflect it's re-creation of LA in the best and most realistic way possible that current console technology can allow.

 

Don't give me that bullsh*t about the current consoles cannot do it, of course they can. If the map is gonna be bigger than GTA IV, RDR and SA combined, then please tell how the f**k Rockstar cannot make LS a bigger place ? I mean look at the mountains and countryside. Of course it can be done, don't talk rubbish.

Ha, talk about defensiveness and rage. Don't question the Official General.

Edited May 17, 2013 by SuccessPastaTime

[GKP]

Success - debate the issues, not the poster. Idiot.

 

 

Its one or the other with the RDF -

 

'I dont want a true crime sized city ' ' Suburbs are boring' ' the map is HUUUGE, stop trolling ' .

 

 

The small city camp however take time to analyse the pictures seen, the experience we have of IV ( 5 years and counting ) and come to the conclusion that while the city is not small for a GTA game, its small for the area its supposed to portray.

 

The most damning evidence of a small city, and it is without question CAST IRON proof of a smallish city is the 9/10 blocks from downtown to the hills, shown in crystal clear detail below.. This distance will be driveable in anything between 45 and 60 seconds (if the windy roads were straight at the hills) . Gold plated proof of a small city. The CBD is in the middle of it so expect similar travel time to the periphery.

 

Edited May 17, 2013 by GKP

[Official General]

Suburbs in the screenshots ? Where ? I must have missed something, because I looked hard and saw NONE. I really DON'T think so. I have seen clusters of homes tucked away in the hills, very nice houses and some mansions (Michael's namely), but I have not seen any true suburban area in the screenshots at all.

 

If Rockstar are saving it for later, then great, I'm very glad to be wrong. Until then, I see no true suburban areas in Los Santos in GTA V, judging from these screenshots.

 

 

Personally, having huge suburbs and such on the scale of LA would get incredibly boring. I dont understand why all you why stupid suburbs soo bad. So you can see copy and pasted houes every block or so where you cant do anything with them? Having variety in the city is much more interesting.

 

I think some of you guys put your expectations up way to high. There is only soo much this current gen of systems can do. Im sure they chose this city size for personal, and technical choice. If they made a larger city im sure they would have to sacrifice some in the visual and draw distance area's and then people would be sitting here bickering about how the visuals look no better than GTA 4.

Man, are you really that stupid ? Or maybe you just choose to be ignorant like many members of the RDF on here.

 

Who the f**k said they wanted copy and pasted blocks in GTA V's Los Santos ? NO ONE. So stop peddling that stupid nonsense that nobody said in the f**king first place. We just want suburbs, because LA is mostly made up of suburban sprawl, just like New York City is made up densely packed skycrapers as seen in Liberty City. How hard is that to understand ??

 

You talk about variety and making the city more interesting, well newsflash buddy, that is why we are here discussing this subject, we want Los Santos to be a very big city to have more of a chance of providing that variety, just like it's real life counterpart LA. We want a dense, busy downtown area, we want working-class residential districts, we want the ghettos, the industrial areas, the port areas, we want wealthy areas and we want the suburbs (LA is made up mostly of sprawling suburbs). If your thick skull actually read closely what we were talking about, you would have had some idea of why we want "stupid" suburbs, and that it actually makes a great deal of sense. We did not request more suburbs to make the game look pretty, we requested it to reflect it's re-creation of LA in the best and most realistic way possible that current console technology can allow.

 

Don't give me that bullsh*t about the current consoles cannot do it, of course they can. If the map is gonna be bigger than GTA IV, RDR and SA combined, then please tell how the f**k Rockstar cannot make LS a bigger place ? I mean look at the mountains and countryside. Of course it can be done, don't talk rubbish.

Ha, talk about defensiveness and rage. Don't question the Official General.

Lol, I can only respond in the best way I know how, when under attack from the RDF

[Ferocious Banger]

nvm

Edited May 17, 2013 by Ferocious Banger

[dxbrandon]

Size of LS ( partially )

 

 

From Observatory to Downtown:

 

 

 

Before the line goes up abruptly as it nears the Observatory, in the consistent line, ~four US Bank Towers ( 310 m ) can be fitted approximately.

 

That is 0.812 mile.

 

Then as the hill comes in, pythagoras theorem had to be applied, twice.

 

The adjacent to the first right angled triangle is 289 meters. The second right angled triangle ( which ends at the observatory ), has its adjacent as 461.3 meters/

 

461.3+289+1308 = 2058.3 m.

 

That is 2.058 kilometers.

 

In other words, ~1.278 miles from the US Bank Tower to the Observatory.

 

 

 

From East ( what we have seen ) to West ( what we can see/have seen ):

 

 

I know the the picture is skewed. But its the best we've got yet.

 

As you can see, more than 8 but lesser than 9 US Bank Towers can be fitted across; That is - (8*310) + 208.988765 m.

 

That is 2.689 kilometers.

 

In other words, 1.67 miles.

 

If the map was only between the Observatory and downtown ( N to S ) and what we can see from East to West,

 

Then the size would be:

 

2.13 sq miles.

 

Assuming the distance between Downtown and and the bridge is another 1.2 miles and if somehow we get another mile to play with over at East LS and west LS combined, we'd get:

 

6.08 sq miles, which is about the size of Liberty City including water.

 

Seems good enough to me. Nice work.

[GKP]

2 minutes at high speed to cross the city. Refute that RDF given the KNOWN block count.

[Emeritus]

 

2 minutes at high speed to cross the city. Refute that RDF given the KNOWN block count.

I don't even know what you're talking about but it's not worth getting upset over.

 

If you don't like it you don't have to buy the game. You know that, right?

[dirtycopVCPD]

Success - debate the issues, not the poster. Idiot.

 

 

Its one or the other with the RDF -

 

'I dont want a true crime sized city ' ' Suburbs are boring' ' the map is HUUUGE, stop trolling ' .

 

 

The small city camp however take time to analyse the pictures seen, the experience we have of IV ( 5 years and counting ) and come to the conclusion that while the city is not small for a GTA game, its small for the area its supposed to portray.

 

The most damning evidence of a small city, and it is without question CAST IRON proof of a smallish city is the 9/10 blocks from downtown to the hills, shown in crystal clear detail below.. This distance will be driveable in anything between 45 and 60 seconds (if the windy roads were straight at the hills) . Gold plated proof of a small city. The CBD is in the middle of it so expect similar travel time to the periphery.

 

 

Sir we both you know you can't post a screenshot of the city on this thread without lines being painted on it on MS Paint.