OpenGL 3.3 vs 4.0 due to running on Parallels.
Hello,
As noted elsewhere, Parallels doesn't support OpenGL 4, only 3.3. I've been running a trial of Parallels 17 on an iMac Pro and so far it seems to be running fine except the simulation calculation is about 3X slower than running on the same hardware with bootcamp (which supports the Radeon drivers). Not sure if this is a OpenGL issue or that the Parallels trial only provides 4 vCPU and my bootcamp has 8. Toolpath generation seems to be the same between each 'machine'.
I'm wondering what is the real impact of running on Parallels with OpenGL 3.3 vs 4. I.e. Is there something actually not working? Why does Maker Plus want OpenGL 4 over 3.3?
Thanks.
PS. I also tried VMWare Fusion and its simulation was 5X slower than Parallels, the 3D mode was basically unusable.
Comments
Hi Atroz,
We have several customers successfully running Carveco software products on Windows 10 and Windows 11 under Parallels Desktop on a Mac; you can find information about Parallels Desktop here: https://www.parallels.com/
We can confirm that we have no issues with installing, activating or working in Carveco Maker+ on Windows 11 under Parallels Desktop 17 (Version: 17.1.2) on a MacBook Air (M1, 2020) with 8GB RAM running macOS Monterey Version 12.3.1.
OpenGL 4.0 is required for making use of the 3D relief modelling functionality within Carveco software; without it, the 3D View is often automatically disabled. However, when running a computer with at least OpenGL 3.3, while the system requirements warning is still displayed within the software, no functionality should be compromised.
Thanks for your time and consideration.
Thank you for the quick response.
Can you please clarify for me what exactly would not work with the 3D relief modelling? I just tried extrude, spin, turn and weave then some sculpting and it all seemed to work just fine.
As mentioned the trial version (which is Parallels Desktop) limits me to 4 vCPU. The Pro version doesn't have that limit. I'm trying to figure out if the pro version is worth the extra cost. Can you tell me if the relative (vs Bootcamp) slowness I experience with the simulation is due to the fewer CPU cores or is it due to the OpenGL version? Where else in the software would additional CPUs help? From my own performance tests, I saw no real difference in the toolpath calculations.
Interesting that you have it working on an M1 system. So it is running under Microsoft x86 emulation on the ARM version of Windows then?
BTW, for reference I am using Parallels 17.1.2 on a iMac Pro, 8 core with 32GB of RAM MacOS 12.4. So far (a couple hours of use) I have seen no problems, beyond the 3D stuff may be slower.
Hi Atroz,
As previously stated, when running a virtual Windows computer under Parallels with at least OpenGL 3.3, no functionality should be lost.
Since the Mac operating system and virtual machines are not part of our published system requirements, they aren't officially supported. Therefore, we cannot confirm what performance results you should expect to achieve when using Carveco Maker+ under the different tiers of Parallels or under Boot Camp.
We'll endeavour to provide you with further information regarding the specific files/settings which were used when testing on our MacBook Air (M1, 2020) with 8GB RAM running macOS Monterey Version 12.3.1.
Thanks again for your time and consideration.
My performance question wasn't really VM related. It was asking about what determines the performance of the Simulation process, is it tied to CPUs or 3D graphics? And I also asked where else in the software does more CPU cores help?
It seems to me the Simulation speed is determined by the 3D graphics support but I wanted to confirm.
Thanks.
Please sign in to leave a comment.