Map size math

[dorsku]

Okay so lets say that map is rectangle with 6mi * 5mi = 30sq.mi. (3.5 x RDR size is about that much). Then the diagonal is 7.8mi= (c^2= 5^2+6^2)

 

So if we are driving through the map from NW to SE (diagonal) and the average speed is 100mp/h regardless of roads and curves, the trip will take t=s/v = 7.8/100 = 0.078h = 4min40sec. So obviously when you're driving that distance with roads, curves, other traffic and slower speed, i'd say its gonna take about 20-25 minutes. That's a lot of time.

 

If we go around the map the trip will be 6mi*2 + 5mi*2 = 22miles, then it takes 13minutes and 12sec when driving full speed and without any obstacles or curves. That'd be at least one hour when driving in normal conditions.

 

 

 

Edited May 7, 2013 by dorsku

[dyz]

Okay so lets say that map is rectangle with 6mi * 5mi = 30sq.mi. (3.5 x RDR size is about that much). Then the diagonal is 7.8mi= (c^2= 5^2+6^2)

 

So if we are driving through the map from NW to SE (diagonal) and the average speed is 100mp/h regardless of roads and curves, the trip will take t=s/v = 7.8/100 = 0.078h = 4min40sec. So obviously when you're driving that distance with roads, curves, other traffic and slower speed, i'd say its gonna take about 20-25 minutes. That's a lot of time.

 

If we go around the map the trip will be 6mi*2 + 5mi*2 = 22miles, then it takes 13.2minutes when driving full speed and without any obstacles or curves. That'd be at least one hour when driving in normal conditions.

 

 

.

Nice!

[tinman187]

 

Okay so lets say that map is rectangle with 6mi * 5mi  = 30sq.mi. (3.5 x RDR size is about that much). Then the diagonal is 7.8mi= (c^2= 5^2+6^2)

 

So if we are driving through the map from NW to SE (diagonal) and the average speed is 100mp/h regardless of roads and curves, the trip will take t=s/v = 7.8/100 = 0.078h = 4min40sec. So obviously when you're driving that distance with roads, curves, other traffic and slower speed, i'd say its gonna take about 20-25 minutes. That's a lot of time.

 

If we go around the map the trip will be 6mi*2 + 5mi*2 = 22miles, then it takes 13minutes and 12sec when driving full speed and without any obstacles or curves.  That'd be at least one hour when driving in normal conditions.

 

 

.

So you built a time machine .............................

 

 

Out of a delorean?!??!?!?!?!

 

just kidding The way you laid those calculations on there made you like Doc Emmett Brown from the GREATEST MOVIE EVER MADE!!!!!

Edited May 7, 2013 by tinman187

[dorsku]

Okay so lets say that map is rectangle with 6mi * 5mi  = 30sq.mi. (3.5 x RDR size is about that much). Then the diagonal is 7.8mi= (c^2= 5^2+6^2)

 

So if we are driving through the map from NW to SE (diagonal) and the average speed is 100mp/h regardless of roads and curves, the trip will take t=s/v = 7.8/100 = 0.078h = 4min40sec. So obviously when you're driving that distance with roads, curves, other traffic and slower speed, i'd say its gonna take about 20-25 minutes. That's a lot of time.

 

If we go around the map the trip will be 6mi*2 + 5mi*2 = 22miles, then it takes 13minutes and 12sec when driving full speed and without any obstacles or curves.  That'd be at least one hour when driving in normal conditions.

 

 

.

So you built a time machine .............................

 

 

Out of a delorean?!??!?!?!?!

 

just kidding The way you laid those calculations on there made you like Doc Emmett Brown from the GREATEST MOVIE EVER MADE!!!!!

Hahhah thanks

[Pegerino]

I think red dead redemption map was very huge ,maybe it felt because i was riding a horse to travel. 3.5x the size of RDR ,Dayummm that MAP!

[d3ex2]

 

I think red dead redemption map was very huge ,maybe it felt because i was riding a horse to travel. 3.5x the size of RDR ,Dayummm that MAP!

It takes about 15 minutes to ride around Redemptions map. Longer if you stick to the very edge. V's map is 3.5x RDR (at least on land) so that means, on a horse, it will take just over 50 minutes to get around it. We will use cars and not horses so it won't take as long. I'd say 30-40 minutes to get around V's map in a car. That's huge!

[TripleRob]

its hard to judge the size of RDR because you were not in a car......but i gotta say those horses can run fast! The map did seem really big. I just hope in gta v they do a good job in blending the city/country side/desert. I just hope your not riding around and then BOOM your in the desert. with the massive size of this map I'm sure they did this correctly. I thought RDR did a nice job in some parts. what im really hoping for is long straight roads that stretch for MILES in the desert......but i don't see that really happening.....but who knows.

[krammkracker]

 

The Variables!!!! The Variables!!!

[kasparlaks]

Math is not my kinda thing...

[Concrete2]

Hold on a minute here. iGTA 5 says GTA SA's map is 13.9 sq miles. RDR is apparently ~twice that size, and GTA V is supposedly 3.5 times that size. Which means that GTA V's map is roughly 97.3 sq miles not including the underwater part, not the 30 sq miles you have in your diagram.

[sanex4]

Edited May 7, 2013 by sanex4

[Dope_0110]

Hold on a minute here. iGTA 5 says GTA SA's map is 13.9 sq miles. RDR is apparently ~twice that size, and GTA V is supposedly 3.5 times that size. Which means that GTA V's map is roughly 97.3 sq miles not including the underwater part, not the 30 sq miles you have in your diagram.

RDR map is smaller than SA, twice as much. It's about as big as IV

[Argon]

Are people seriously impressed by the "math" used by the OP? There is nothing scientific about going from approximately 4 min. to 20-25 min, 'because it is not going to be a straight road'. You calculated a time based on a estimated distance, and a random velocity. Then you "magically" increased that number to a number that seems to be like the one you wanted in the first place. If the time you ESTIMATED for a diagonal travel is the time needed for the perimeter, it would be more realistic, I guess. A full hour for a circle around the map would suggest a enormous map.

[dorsku]

Are people seriously impressed by the "math" used by the OP? There is nothing scientific about going from approximately 4 min. to 20-25 min, 'because it is not going to be a straight road'. You calculated a time based on a estimated distance, and a random velocity. Then you "magically" increased that number to a number that seems to be like the one you wanted in the first place. If the time you ESTIMATED for a diagonal travel is the time needed for the perimeter, it would be more realistic, I guess. A full hour for a circle around the map would suggest a enormous map.

What are you complaining? The whole idea was, that all calculations are hypothetic and just speculating.. I haven't said that there would be something "scientific" . Seems like the point of these calculations didn't open for you.

[omer19992010]

Hold on a minute here. iGTA 5 says GTA SA's map is 13.9 sq miles. RDR is apparently ~twice that size, and GTA V is supposedly 3.5 times that size. Which means that GTA V's map is roughly 97.3 sq miles not including the underwater part, not the 30 sq miles you have in your diagram.

The entire Red Dead map is just a little smaller than San Andreas at 11-12 Sq Miles but the playable area is about the same size as GTA IV at 6-7 Sq Miles.

[richard1997jones]

Okay so lets say that map is rectangle with 6mi * 5mi = 30sq.mi. (3.5 x RDR size is about that much). Then the diagonal is 7.8mi= (c^2= 5^2+6^2)

 

So if we are driving through the map from NW to SE (diagonal) and the average speed is 100mp/h regardless of roads and curves, the trip will take t=s/v = 7.8/100 = 0.078h = 4min40sec. So obviously when you're driving that distance with roads, curves, other traffic and slower speed, i'd say its gonna take about 20-25 minutes. That's a lot of time.

 

If we go around the map the trip will be 6mi*2 + 5mi*2 = 22miles, then it takes 13minutes and 12sec when driving full speed and without any obstacles or curves. That'd be at least one hour when driving in normal conditions.

 

 

 

Anyone else totally lost here

[kj2022]

I think we need a bit more of the map to be revealed to work this out, there are countless meanders the road could take.

[H. León]

 

Hold on a minute here. iGTA 5 says GTA SA's map is 13.9 sq miles. RDR is apparently ~twice that size, and GTA V is supposedly 3.5 times that size. Which means that GTA V's map is roughly 97.3 sq miles not including the underwater part, not the 30 sq miles you have in your diagram.

Actually, no. It seems like V has more mountains and tall buildings than SA/RDR. When they say it's 3.5 the size of RDR, they mean the whole 3D map. So, imagine you flatten out the whole mountains and buildings.

[dorsku]

 

I think we need a bit more of the map to be revealed to work this out, there are countless meanders the road could take.

Yup, thats why those calculations were just hypothetical.And even if we knew the map it'd be almost impossible to give accurate numbers because of curving roads etc..

Edited May 7, 2013 by dorsku

[kj2022]

I think we need a bit more of the map to be revealed to work this out, there are countless meanders the road could take.

Yup, thats why those calculations were just hypothetical.And even if we knew the map it'd be almost impossible to give accurate numbers because of curving roads etc..

yeah, as soon as the game leaks a few days before release, it'll be slightly more possible, your math however is good.

[Andreas]

 

iGTA 5 says GTA SA's map is 13.9 sq miles. RDR is apparently ~twice that size, and GTA V is supposedly 3.5 times that size.

It's correct that San Andreas' map is 13.9 square miles big, however the statement that Red Dead Redemption is twice as big than SA is factually wrong; the explorable area is only around 6-7 square miles big and if you count the non-explorable area too, then the overall map size if around 11-12 square miles. The land area of GTAV would be more than 20 and the underwater environment around 10 sqm big.