Banana Pudding

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    211

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by Banana Pudding

  3. Posted · Report reply

    The detailed ocean floor might extend far in some areas and less in others. When you get past the detailed sea floor, it might just be a featureless sandy bottom.

    Reading that size quote, I'm not expecting the land area of GTA V to be any larger than 20 square miles (3.5 times RDR). I'd like it to be bigger, but I don't have any reason to believe that it is.

  5. Posted · Report reply

    SA: 14

    GTA IV: 6

    RDR: "5.5"

    = Over 20, unless they have an area the size of RDR as the underwater environment.

    And even if they do include the area off the coast, it's still part of the playable map since you can now go underwater, so it's essentially the same thing as adding mountains, forests and other above-ground terrain.

    If the map is an island again and they detail a strip of ocean floor around it, then the underwater area could be the size of RDR.

    D7Lkire.jpg

    Also, since they're including topography in their larger size comparison, you have to take into account the mountains. If there are more mountains in GTA V and they're higher than in SA and RDR, that would shrink the 2 dimensional map even more. Plus, there's this quote from Game Informer:

    the underwater has had the same attention as above land with rocky canyons, deep ravines

    They're probably including all of those elevation changes in their measurements. They're not just measuring flat space.

  6. Posted · Report reply

    I've been thinking about this quote:

    Rockstar says the map is 3.5 times bigger than Red Dead Redemption -- 5 times bigger if you include topography, as representatives kept talking about be depths of the ocean.

    If you don't include the ocean floor, GTA V is 3.5 times RDR. The playable area of RDR is about 5.5 square miles, so the land area of GTA V would be less than 20 square miles.

    WEUKEGQ.jpg

    That would also mean that when they say it's bigger than SA, IV, and RDR combined, they're including the ocean floor off the coast. I'm not complaining since it's still a pretty big area, but it might not be as big as they're making it seem.

  10. Posted · Report reply

    That comparison map above isn't accurate.

    Red Dead Redemption has been measured with CAD software:

    n1kY0Rd.png

    The reachable area is under 6 square miles.

    That method was also used on San Andreas and IV and the results are accurate compared to the in-game stats.

    http://i.imgur.com/2RW4N.png

    http://i.imgur.com/gco2q.png

    Those numbers work well with the quotes below:

    bigger than GTA IV, Red Dead Redemption, and GTA San Andreas combined

    San Andreas (14 sq mi) + IV (6.5 sq mi) + RDR (6 sq mi) = 26.5 square miles

    bigger than Red Dead Redemption -- 5 times bigger if you include topography

    6 sq mi X 5 = 30 square miles

  16. Posted · Report reply

    what bothers me more is how much the mountain in the back shifts from just a little angular change in perspective, which most likely means it's considerably close to the Vinewood Hills which, in turn, doesn't speak in favor of a large map...

    I think it's the other way. There would be a larger shift the farther away it is. I think.

    gBjTi.jpg

  17. Posted · Report reply

    Is anyone else thinking that the desert and Alamo Sea area are to the east of LS, rather than north? The Salton Sea is east of LA, after all...

    To those that think it is to the north, what, specifically, makes you think so?

    I'm going on a real-life layout and nothing more, myself. Naturally, my theory is much less valid.

    It might be east of the city.

    8PLMU.jpg

    ;) That just seems to be the only place it fits. It's possible that the water you see is just a different lake and not the Alamo Sea which could actually be in the east.

    It's hard to determine the orientation of the map since they seem to be placing the sun in places that make the screenshots look good rather than where it should be.

    It would seem, that if you were right about the red section, youd be able to see the hollywood sign from the red picture, but you cant...

    I think that's because of the glare.

    pYkHa.jpg

    • Like 1

  20. Posted · Report reply

    Found another estimation of the map (click image to zoom in):

    Something doesn't quite look right with the roads in south of the city though.

    It's needs a couple of small adjustments that I've already told him about. From the observatory, you have to be able to see the entire airport between the golf course and downtown buildings. Also, from the oil well, you have to see the lower part of the mountain to the left of the building.

    tLfkn.jpg

    • Like 1

  21. Posted · Report reply

    Reposting this here to get some opinions about the location of Grapeseed...

    I marked the relative distances between the peaks and valleys in the mountains from different views here -

    Drpjd.jpg

    A and C are close matches which would suggest those pictures were taken across from one another which would put Grapeseed around the west side of the large mountain that's north of the city. It's not a prefect method so it could move a little to either side.

    For mapping purposes, it would be easier to put it to the east, but I think it would make sense to have Grapeseed a good distance west of the desert airstrip area considering it's a vineyard and there should be a transition between desert and fertile farmland. The mountains would be a good transition between the two areas.

    If it is to the west, do you think it's possible that this is the same mountain in all 3 pictures below?

    DVGsE.jpg