GEM 3 Engine - Plans ?

[Sara2012]

I cant confirm that DMS added a real multi-core support, the essential processes in assault squad are still bound to one core.
But if its possible to implement it in GEM2...interesting.

[Windmaker]

One question to General - do You know exact differences between GEM 2 (GEM 2,5 I guess, because GEM in MoW series was an updated GEM 2 engine - am I right?) and GEM 3?

I'm just wondering as we are talking about GEM engine, if there is any possibility to completely rework camera movement system - to be more smooth, and what is even more important - how many things can be changed in interface section and things with accounts etc.

To clear out my point of view - is there any way to add to GEM engine things similar to for example some ideas from Wargame EE game. It's just theoretical question, as I just want to know how many things we can propose in any discussion about heavy changes in game.

[mrfantastic]

@djsatane
Has nothing to do with hype, the engine is great, i dont even play battlefield but this engine makes stunning effects & graphics, thats a fact ..
@Inuki

cool story bro, doesnt mean its true at all.. i wonder actually what is so magic about the gem2 engine

@GeneralJ927

destruction is pretty on one level, its possible to make it even better if needed, but in frostbite it looks just 30213014130 times better, mod support is bad of course, but thats EA policy and have nothing to do with the engine itself

[Inuki]

What I've seen Frostbyte 2 engine do in battlefield 3 is mostly smoke and mirrors. Everyone yells out "Destruction is so good" but Men of War has better destruction. You can't blow something up in battlefield 3 and take cover behind the debris. It fades away. However in Men of War fragments of the building can fall and be used as cover.


There is some "ground" destruction but feels more like pre-set crators than terrain modification.


Does Battlefield 3 have the ability to calculate bullets bouncing off or anything like that? Maybe...but the developers won't do that. They will instead make a mortar and ruin all hope for outdoor cover-to-cover battles.

[ShtoormoVick]

Let's be fair: BF 3 has nothing to do with emulation of any sort of reality, or any serious calculation involved (remember the hit registering system?), all it's got is very limited "destruction" (or, rather, "evaporation"?) system, especially in comparison with unmatched, and I mean that - unmatched - amount of details and calculations, present in SHoWW2 and all the following games.
Does that all make it a bad FPS? No. But it has nothing to do with any sort of "incredibly calculative" engine - there's no such thing in BF 3!

[djsatane]

engine used by bf3 is full of hype and I stand by it, its good for purposes of game such as bf3 but when someone telling me to use this as upgrade to to gem engine for new men of war it makes me just chuckle.

[alex0809]

BF3 is by no means an ugly game even without it, but honestly - most of the "great looks" of the engine come from the overusage of effects like bloom.

[mrfantastic]

bloom.

Remember the jump from Vanilla to Assault Squad ?? Mainly bloom ..

I was actually speaking of the next version of frostbite, however most things that mow have, have bf3 aswell just with lower detail, i dont think the engine is too limited for that ..

i actually think we are couple of years away from a mow 2, if mow 2 come with the gem3 engine it will be outdated in most terms long before release.. iam not a graphics fanatic but most people that just see screenshots of mow think that this game is ugly, what it isnt, the game reveals its quality if its actually played, i has a unmatched amount of details, for a mow 2 they should try out something new, not gem 3, i think mow has potential to be a really big game.. but however we'll see what future bring us there

[ShtoormoVick]

To give this thread some sort of validity, can anyone list features of GEM 3, that are not a part of GEM 2?

All I know, there's multi-core support and slightly better visuals. But visuals are not of great importance in comparison between the two, in my opinion. However the multi-core support is very important, as well as the stability, and the smoothness of performance, if they are improved in GEM 3. With these three confirmed (if they are), I would say, it is enough of a reason to consider taking GEM 3 as a base for the game.

... and of course a (PC) resource effective replay system would not hurt. In fact, if this alone is available as a feature with GEM 3, I say, it should be definitely considered to be taken as a base for the game. Well, that's with as much as there is information available, and it is incomplete, and thus the judgment is doomed to be inaccurate, to say the least.

[GeneralJ927]

@Sara2012 - I forced the game to use only one core and i lost roughly 33% performance, forcing two cores i got normal performance, can't go higher as i only have a dual-core.

@Windmaker - I only know a few differences and yes its GEM2.5 for MoW. With the source code and the knowledge on coding, you can do what you want, you can make a MoW MMO or FPS, although the more things you add, the more instability you get, including bugs/glitches.

@ShtoormoVick - Since a complete list has never been given out, only a few things are known. Yes there is multi-core support, but its dual-core only (from what i've seen), also the visuals are the same as the same shaders are used. With the more stuff you add, the less stability you get, along with the performance.