GTA V Mapped!

[DuPz0r 5361]

The use of Jet's will shrink the size of the map. Not literally.

Tha's a good point. People here think that LS will be small (based on some screenshots/caps we've seen so far). Jets were not implemented into IV because the map was just to small, it would have exposed to much of the map too quickly. With the use of Jets in V, this means the map has to be at least twice the size of IV imo... So LS has to be a decent size in comparison to LC, not forgetting a probable large overall map.

[TreeFitty 2631]

I keep on forgetting to mention this: Comparing screenshots from IV would be fine except EVERYTHING depends on the camera's zoom. That's a huge reason why trying to tie all these screenshots/trailer screencaps together for an actual scaled map has been a pain in the ass. They are all a little different.

[Qdeathstar 1763]

Hes using the height of the buildings compared to their real life counterparts. I think it is probably pretty accurate and that a lot of arrogant people are going to be eating a lot of crow once trailer two is released.

How can you go back go san andreas, without going back to san andreas.

[Banana Pudding 95]

I keep on forgetting to mention this: Comparing screenshots from IV would be fine except EVERYTHING depends on the camera's zoom. That's a huge reason why trying to tie all these screenshots/trailer screencaps together for an actual scaled map has been a pain in the ass. They are all a little different.

Zoom has no effect on the scaled pics. The Bank Tower is 70% as tall as the Empire State Building.

Every method I've used comes to the same conclusion - the area of Los Santos city is roughly the size of Algonquin and Alderney combined or smaller. I don't see anything that suggests it's any bigger than that.

Almost the entire city of Los Santos can be seen in the oil well and helicopter pics and it's not as dense or vertical as Liberty City. There has to be significantly more city area in the game.

[TreeFitty 2631]

It makes all the difference when you're trying to place where the camera is on the map.

[DuPz0r 5361]

We can't judge the scale of the city that well atm imho... We don't even know how far back the city stretches with the small amount of images we've seen so far... The city could stretch around the coastline past those mountains in-land for all we know. what we have seen so far though, is agreeably small when compared to Liberty City.

[x910 24]

It makes all the difference when you're trying to place where the camera is on the map.

It makes all the difference when you're trying to place where the camera is on the map.

I totally agree...

Surely position of camera on the map certainly has different effects.

[Qdeathstar 1763]

Id say the angle of the shots matters more than then zoom.

But the helicopter picture is the most convincing to me, since they using the same engine, draw distances should be similar and viewing angle should be similar,

[MrMister81 473]

It makes all the difference when you're trying to place where the camera is on the map.

TreeFitty is spot on. Angle of view is a huge factor and cannot be ignored. A trivial example is this image that appears in a Wikipedia article:

The items are the same size, but depending on factors like focal length and zoom level, each image looks totally different.

Now, all of this analysis is fascinating, but let's not pretend we know anything definitive about the scale of the map.

[Banana Pudding 95]

It makes all the difference when you're trying to place where the camera is on the map.

TreeFitty is spot on. Angle of view is a huge factor and cannot be ignored. A trivial example is this image that appears in a Wikipedia article:

The items are the same size, but depending on factors like focal length and zoom level, each image looks totally different.

Now, all of this analysis is fascinating, but let's not pretend we know anything definitive about the scale of the map.

First of all, that still wouldn't affect relative scale of items in the background. Secondly, Rockstar didn't use any camera tricks like that in the trailers for IV. Every view in the trailers can be achieved on consoles.

Most importantly, are they going to make the game look bigger or smaller in the trailer and screenshots? It's highly likely that they made it look as big as possible. For instance, would they show a view of the city like this...

or like this...

Companies don't make their products look less than what they are. They make them appear as great as possible.

Here's the first trailer for IV - http://youtu.be/M80K51DosFo

Do you see how most of the views of the buildings are from a low angle? That's to make everything appear larger.

[Banana Pudding 95]

I need to clarify things a little about focal length and zoom. There is a difference between first and third person views in the game, but it's not nearly as much as the water bottle picture above.. First person makes objects appear farther away than third person. It doesn't make a significant difference when estimating the size of the map.

In the picture below, one is in first person and the other is in third. The pay phone on the left is in the same spot for both. The building in the distance appears smaller and farther away in first person. See...

That distance above is pretty insignificant.

In my Chrysler building comparison ( http://i.imgur.com/RO6cw.jpg ) I used first person since the GTA V pic is also in first person. However, you don't have to travel that much farther away to make the buildings look the same distance away in third person.

I took all these factors into account when estimating the map size. If you assume the oil well in the trailer is farther away from the downtown buildings than any other point (which I think is true), and you use third person view to estimate the distance (even though the trailer is in first person which makes things look farther away), and you make that distance the radius of a circle, you get this:

That's an over-estimated area for the city of Los Santos.

[Crazee 204]

Man, that's some smart shit figuring that out, if it's right of course. Well done.

[Banana Pudding 95]

Man, that's some smart shit figuring that out, if it's right of course. Well done.

I could be wrong, but the odds are in my favor.

There's a good bit of evidence that suggests Los Santos is small. There is no evidence that it's big.

[DuPz0r 5361]

Hey pud, you make it sound like the first person camera is the same lens type for gta iv and the v trailer. They probably have a slider to control camera lenses in game. Which makes things difficault to judge. You can't assume the first person camera is for example, always a 15mm lens, that'd just be guessing. Perspective does play a part in judging a distance too. Focal length & feild of view can drastically alter the size of a distant object from image to image.

I know you coule calculate the height of an object based on real world object scales, but that's still not accurate. I'm not dismissing your efforts, as we can all see just by watching the trailer and looking at pics, that it seems like a fairly small city.

[kristo 12]

i just hope they don't rush this [even though i can't wait for it]. i rather have a large map to play with and more "activities" to do around the map.

with the map i'm guessing its just going to be a big city, areas will be restricted by means of road blocks, building sites etc etc. [opposed to bridges] the city itself will be closed in by land and sea... sea going on forever... and land being the countryside going on forever [repeating the map area]. the coasts might be beach's or cliffs.

hope they have many terrains

[MrMister81 473]

Hey pud, you make it sound like the first person camera is the same lens type for gta iv and the v trailer. They probably have a slider to control camera lenses in game. Which makes things difficault to judge. You can't assume the first person camera is for example, always a 15mm lens, that'd just be guessing. Perspective does play a part in judging a distance too. Focal length & feild of view can drastically alter the size of a distant object from image to image.

I know you coule calculate the height of an object based on real world object scales, but that's still not accurate. I'm not dismissing your efforts, as we can all see just buy watching the trailer and looking at pics, that it seems like a fairly small city.

^^ What he said.

Look, BP, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying there are too many unknowns involved for you to insist that you're right.

A for effort, though. That's some in-depth analysis.

[ViceMan 1380]

I think the map will be thiiiis biiiiiig.

*extends arms out to maximum reach*

Prove me wrong.

[Banana Pudding 95]

Hey pud, you make it sound like the first person camera is the same lens type for gta iv and the v trailer. They probably have a slider to control camera lenses in game. Which makes things difficault to judge. You can't assume the first person camera is for example, always a 15mm lens, that'd just be guessing. Perspective does play a part in judging a distance too. Focal length & feild of view can drastically alter the size of a distant object from image to image.

I know you coule calculate the height of an object based on real world object scales, but that's still not accurate. I'm not dismissing your efforts, as we can all see just buy watching the trailer and looking at pics, that it seems like a fairly small city.

Even if Rockstar used techniques in the trailer to get views that you can't get on consoles (they didn't in the IV trailer), I've already shown how significant size differences of background objects don't translate into large distances on the map. For instance, a 100% difference in size doesn't mean it's 100% farther away. You can see it in the pics I already posted:

http://i.imgur.com/yybBZ.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/bR7CB.jpg

That presents more of a problem in placing individual points inside the map than it does for estimating the maximum size of the map.

Even when I over-estimate everything when trying to figure out the size of Los Santos, it still doesn't cover more area than Alderney and Algonquin combined.

If anyone can show any views that would suggest it's bigger, let's see it. I can't find anything.

[DuPz0r 5361]

Hey pud, you make it sound like the first person camera is the same lens type for gta iv and the v trailer. They probably have a slider to control camera lenses in game. Which makes things difficault to judge. You can't assume the first person camera is for example, always a 15mm lens, that'd just be guessing. Perspective does play a part in judging a distance too. Focal length & feild of view can drastically alter the size of a distant object from image to image.

I know you coule calculate the height of an object based on real world object scales, but that's still not accurate. I'm not dismissing your efforts, as we can all see just buy watching the trailer and looking at pics, that it seems like a fairly small city.

Even if Rockstar used techniques in the trailer to get views that you can't get on consoles (they didn't in the IV trailer), I've already shown how significant size differences of background objects don't translate into large distances on the map. For instance, a 100% difference in size doesn't mean it's 100% farther away. You can see it in the pics I already posted:

http://i.imgur.com/yybBZ.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/bR7CB.jpg

That presents more of a problem in placing individual points inside the map than it does for estimating the maximum size of the map.

Even when I over-estimate everything when trying to figure out the size of Los Santos, it still doesn't cover more area than Alderney and Algonquin combined.

If anyone can show any views that would suggest it's bigger, let's see it. I can't find anything.

I understand what you're trying to do, as does other people here. You can judge the distance of the objects in IV images because you have a map. But you can't entirely be sure how big or to which scale the relative 'V buildings were built. There is a chance that they might not even be built to the same scale as in IV.

These images of IV below have plenty of different camera angles/fov/perspectives. If you hadn't played GTA IV (or seens an IV map) before seeing them, you could also be mistaken on the size of the city.

Those images to me, make IV look small. Because you can't see more than what is visible. The 'V images have background fog to some extent, and you can only see what they've limited us to see. They could have done this intentionally, and imo, they probably put a lot of thought and effort into only showing us this area. There could be a lot more to LS than we realise. But we can't really discuss that until we see it.

Anyway pud, thanks for your input here. Continue to prove your point of view. It's good to have healthy debates in this board, it's made the thread a more interesting read anyway.

[Banana Pudding 95]

Summary:

- Visual evidence suggests that the city area of Los Santos is considerably smaller than Liberty City.

- Zero evidence that it's big.

- Different methods of estimating size come to the same conclusion.

- Over-estimating size of Los Santos still doesn't cover more area than Alderney and Algonquin combined.

- Proven that effects of zoom and focal length don't translate into significant distances on map; therefore, have minimal effect on estimates of total map size.

- Proven that Rockstar used angles to make things appear larger in GTA IV trailer.

- Proven that Rockstar didn't use any views in GTA IV trailer that can't be achieved on consoles.

Arguments against are all based on assumptions that...

- Buildings aren't scaled properly even though they're scaled properly in IV. (unlikely)

- Rockstar used camera techniques to intentionally make the city appear smaller. (highly unlikely)

[Massacre 7646]

Summary:

- Potentially inaccurate visual evidence based on my own opinion and a slightly above-average understanding of perspective suggests that the city area of Los Santos is considerably smaller than Liberty City.

- Zero evidence that it's big, in my opinion.

- Different methods of estimating size - all of which I made up, ignoring others' thoughts on the matter - come to the same conclusion.

- Over-estimating size of Los Santos using my potentially inaccurate methods still doesn't cover more area than Alderney and Algonquin combined.

- Proven (in my mind) that effects of zoom and focal length don't translate into significant distances on map; therefore, have minimal effect on estimates of total map size.

- 'Proven' that Rockstar used angles to make things appear larger in GTA IV trailer.

- Proven that Rockstar didn't use any views in GTA IV trailer that can't be achieved on consoles, except for the ones they did.

- Proven that I am a twat who can't accept the possibility that I may be mistaken, but am perfectly capable of claiming everyone else is.

Arguments against are all based on assumptions that...

- Buildings aren't scaled properly even though they're scaled properly in IV. (unlikely)

- Rockstar used camera techniques to intentionally make the city appear smaller. (highly unlikely, but only because I misunderstood what Dup said)

Thoroughly fixed.

Are you aware it is possible to have a debate without being a twat?

[Banana Pudding 95]

You resort to name-calling, and somehow I'm the twat. Nice.

- Potentially inaccurate visual evidence based on my own opinion and a slightly above-average understanding of perspective suggests that the city area of Los Santos is considerably smaller than Liberty City.

I know about perspective and factored that in. Also, is Rockstar going to choose images and views that make the city appear smaller?

- Zero evidence that it's big, in my opinion.

Show some evidence that it's big. I challenge you.

- Different methods of estimating size - all of which I made up, ignoring others' thoughts on the matter - come to the same conclusion.

Yeah, I totally invented using scale and images to estimate distance. Also, I didn't ignore anything.

- Over-estimating size of Los Santos using my potentially inaccurate methods still doesn't cover more area than Alderney and Algonquin combined.

Correct. Potentially, not probably. The odds are in my favor.

- Proven (in my mind) that effects of zoom and focal length don't translate into significant distances on map; therefore, have minimal effect on estimates of total map size.

Did you see this?

http://i.imgur.com/bR7CB.jpg

- 'Proven' that Rockstar used angles to make things appear larger in GTA IV trailer.

You can remove the quotes. It's fact. Pictures taken from low angles make objects appear larger.

http://youtu.be/M80K51DosFo

- Proven that Rockstar didn't use any views in GTA IV trailer that can't be achieved on consoles, except for the ones they did.

Which ones? Show them.

- Proven that I am a twat who can't accept the possibility that I may be mistaken, but am perfectly capable of claiming everyone else is.

I've already admitted I could be wrong. Look a few posts up. Again, who's being the twat here?

used camera techniques to intentionally make the city appear smaller. (highly unlikely, but only because I misunderstood what Dup said)

I understood everything he said. It has minimal effect on the estimates of total map size.

[Mercy 30]

*enters* TL; DR *leaves*

[Massacre 7646]

Not name-calling, just stating the obvious. Of course, as I did so, I did not think about what a long and boring back-and-forth this would turn into, if I let it. But I won't.

You're interpreting everything - including other people's posts - in whatever way best suits your argument. Someone makes a solid counterpoint, and your response is essentially "Hm, maybe, but here's a vaguely-related post I made earlier that doesn't really pertain to your point. I'm right!" Saying "I may be wrong, but the odds are in my favor," is your way of saying "I may be wrong... but I'm not."

I don't give a shit about the map, my issue is you being a smug asshole. The least you could do is sarcastically pretend that you think their points are valid.

Oh, and the GTA IV trailer looked like it did because it was based on a documentary that had the same angles and filming style, not to make the city look bigger. The other three trailers didn't look like that.

[ViceMan 1380]

We don't have to know why we think the map is bigger, we don't have to provide a compelling argument to back it up. Opinions are still opinions, despite how much so-called evidence you've gathered. It does not make them any more factual than a person who doesn't provide evidence.