Software Mac OS X & Virtual Machine Windows

[MikeB]

I run Orbiter on my Mac with virtualization. I'd like to know if others have found an optimal configuration. I'd also like to know how best to assess performance. I give FPS below.

Here's my setup:

MacBook Pro
CPU: 2.53 GHz Core Duo
RAM: 4 GB 1067 MHz DDR3
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 9400M and NVIDIA GeForce 9400M GT (yes, two graphics processors)
Display: 1440x900
Virtualization: Parallels Desktop 4.0 (4.0.3846) (I doubt that Parallels takes advantage of two GPUs)
Guest OS: Windows XP SP3
Orbiter: 2006 P1 Basic (no add-ons)
Video:
3D Device: Direct3D HAL
Full-screen 1440x900
Colour depth: 32
Visual Effects:
Cloud layers: ON
Cloud shadows: OFF
Horizon haze: ON
Specular water reflections: ON
Specular ripples: OFF
Planet night lights: ON
Night light level: 0.70
Max resolution level: 10
General effects: all ON
Scenario: 2006 Edition > Level 10 > City lights at night

Performance:
FPS: 9 to 11

 

[TSPenguin]

Check alway enumerate devices in the video tab and see if any T&L devices are available. If so, it is generally the best option to choose the last one in the list. Don't know about parallels though.

 

[MikeB]

Thanks, TSPenguin. I turned on Always enumerate devices, and indeed Direct3D T&L HAL appears in the list. However, selecting it seemed to give the same FPS as Direct3D HAL. Perhaps Parallels Desktop 4 doesn't actually do anything differently with that option selected.

---------- Post added at 11:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 AM ----------

I've tried some combinations of parameter settings, and obtained some performance measures. This is not a comprehensive investigation; I would be glad to see someone else's results using a Mac to run Orbiter. The base hardware/software configuration is as described in the first post of this thread. I tried VMware Fusion 2.0, but it has serious problems, making Orbiter unplayable, even when it doesn't CTD. Newer versions of Parallels and VMware are available, but I haven't tried them.

I've listed my tests in the order that gave the best performance first. For all tests, only the Finder and Parallels Desktop v4. were running on the Mac, and only Windows XP Sp 3, Windows Exporer, and Orbiter 2006p1 (base, no add-ons) were running in the Virtual Machine.

Config 1:
Virtual Machine in full-screen mode (Mac windows can't be seen)
Launchpad Video Tab: Always enumerate devices ON; Direct3D T&L HAL; Window, 1024x768
Launchpad Visual effects tab: All effects OFF
Launchpad Parameters tab: Complex flight model, Limited fuel, Focus follows mouse ON; all others OFF; Stars: 3,000 / 1.0 / 1.0; Instruments: MFD refresh = 1.00; Generic MFD size = 6; Panel scale = 1.00; Panel scroll speed = 30
Scenario: Demo > Docked at ISS (DeltaGlider)
Performance: cockpit view = 18 FPS, external view of ISS = 24-26 FPS, earth ocean surface is posterized (presume 16-bit color depth)

Config 2 (differences from Config 1):
Virtual Mode in Coherence mode (Mac windows visible behind Orbiter windows)
Video: Window 1024x768
Performance: cockpit = 18 FPS; external (ISS) = 24 FPS; external w/o ISS = 28 FPS

Config 3:
Video: Direct 3D HAL
Performance: same as Config 1

Config 4:
Video: Window 1280x900
Performance: cockpit = 11-12 FPS; external (ISS) = 12 FPS

Config 5:
Virtual Machine in Full-screen mode
Video: Full screen 1440x900x32
Performance: When scenario starts, both MFDs flicker; on F1, external view shows in only a strip at the top, about 100 pixels high, with cockpit view remaining on-screen below; on F4, Main menu doesn't appear.

 

[levans]

Parallels vs Fusion and Orbiter 2010

Now that Orbiter 2010 is out I've decided to play some more.

I have always wanted to run Orbiter under virtualisation on my Mac instead of from my Boot Camp partition and I'm pleased to say that both my copies of Fusion and Parallels do a much better job now than when I last tried (probably around a year ago).

The biggest bugbears seem to be with visible texture quads:
Fusion: nasty quads visible for bits of Earth, random other stuff and particle systems (e.g. rocket exhaust, rocket flame etc.)
Parallels: better at 'static' textures, but quads visible for particle systems (as above).

I guess both Parallels and Fusion still have a way to go with Direct3D support (though I'm amazed at the recent improvements made). However, I'm also wondering if there are configuration tweaks that might make, say, the Parallels version work with the particle systems.

Perhaps some of this depends on the video card (or maybe not that much as I imagine in both cases a virtual 3D card has to be mapped to real 3D card features). However, I've tried both my MacBook Pro and Mac Pro and both have the same problem - so it's probably just more work needed in the virtualisation engines and their Win XP drivers.

Maybe Win 7 works properly come to think of it. Does anyone have positive experience with Win 7 under either Parallels or Fusion running Orbiter?