Games In Virtual Box

[astromech_kuhns]

so if im running linux, and am running virtual box with windows as the virtual OS, can i play games on it?

i want to play games but i want to run linux as well. i prefer the security of linux and its ease of use. so i want to run ubuntu, set up virtual box with a windows OS, and then put it the new TOR game or republic commando. i would assume it works, the disc would come up in the virtual windows machine and i could run it. but im not sure.... havent been able to run anything like that, not enough sufficient RAM. so if any one that can try it would, that would be amazing.

and i dont want to dual boot. it would be a hassle to switch between the two for gaming and everyday use. i do it right now. if there isnt a way, then im just going to have to run windows. because i want gaming.

Thanks

Kolton

[okiwan]

iv been wondering this too. i think if your computer is powerful enough then it shouldnt be a problem. im pretty sure virtualbox enables full support of your video card.

[astromech_kuhns]

iv been wondering this too. i think if your computer is powerful enough then it shouldnt be a problem. im pretty sure virtualbox enables full support of your video card.

exactly. if i have virtual windows, i can designate how much hard drive space i want on it, so i can save a game file, and then also, you can put RAM to it. leave enough for the linux OS, which isnt much and run your game...

i want to build a computer and play starwars games for story line, as well as take advantage of the amazingness of a system i build, but cant do that if i cant game. so if in that sense, windows would be a better tool for me to use than linux and i would switch.

[Mr-Protocol]

In virtualbox enable the 3D video option and give it a shot? That is how i got the extra video effects in my VM of Ubuntu was by turning that on.

[astromech_kuhns]

In virtualbox enable the 3D video option and give it a shot? That is how i got the extra video effects in my VM of Ubuntu was by turning that on.

i would try it but i dont have sufficient ram to even run the virtual box. i still need to build my own computer. which i hope will happen soon now that i have my car.

[VaKo]

Gaming in VirtualBox? Not going to happen, the virtual 3D adaptor can barely run Aero let alone anything complicated like a modern 3D game. But all is not lost, you just need to look at Wine and/or Cedega, which uses a API that allows you to run Windows programs under Linux, Cedega being a commercial version of Wine geared towards gaming. Failing that, find Linux games or duel boot. Linux is a bit meh for Games tbh.

[Charles]

Gaming in VirtualBox? Not going to happen, the virtual 3D adaptor can barely run Aero let alone anything complicated like a modern 3D game. But all is not lost, you just need to look at Wine and/or Cedega, which uses a API that allows you to run Windows programs under Linux, Cedega being a commercial version of Wine geared towards gaming. Failing that, find Linux games or duel boot. Linux is a bit meh for Games tbh.

+1 to that.

I tried running Sacred in VBox and is just dumped to the desktop.

The hardware in VBox doesn't like to use D3D. I wouldn't want to run any game in there if I had a choice.

[Trip]

if i could play my games via virtual box i'd do away with windows

[okiwan]

get an xbox360.

[astromech_kuhns]

Wine cant handle games can it? i thought that it wasnt even able to handle a application as big as itunes....

[digip]

I don't know about virtual box, but the latest VMware has GPU acceleration. I can run AERO in full windows vista and 7 VM's with no issues and even get an average experience rating score comparable to notebook and consumer desktop ratings.

If its something not super graphic intensive, you could probably get a way with it, but I don't think you are going to be playing anything high end GPU intensive with it though without some major optimization, like a dedicated disk of its own for the VM, maybe SSD's, major ram for no swapping on disk, and beefy graphics. Still, if you got a machine that nice to do it in a VM, better to dual boot and go native for the full hardware support and best results.

[astromech_kuhns]

ok, so its a lot like this. although i grew up with windows, im more use to linux and like it. a lot. if i go the windows route, then i might as well game and take advantage of it. but if not, then i simply want to be able to play star wars games. such as galaxies, the new TOR game, and the old kotor and republic commando. so at the least, linux with those games.

so it kind of comes down to i guess, linux with mentioned games in vmware, like you said, if it will work, or run windows and be backed by full hardware.

[Infiltrator]

Virtual machines are usually slower than the host operating system. So if you want to play games and have a good FPS, just install it on a normal machine. You can still try for experimentation purposes it would be good to know the results tough.

Edit: This link can give you more info, http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/virtual...ort-vmware.html

Edited September 22, 2010 by Infiltrator

[digip]

Virtual machines are usually slower than the host operating system. So if you want to play games and have a good FPS, just install it on a normal machine. You can still try for experimentation purposes it would be good to know the results tough.

Edit: This link can give you more info, http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/virtual...ort-vmware.html

VM's are generally slower on home desktop machines due to configuration and hardware limits in use, but not all desktop machines were created equal. I can have 5-10 VM's open at the same time with not much noticeable difference in performance. I've even had 3 Server 2003 machines with Exchange going at the same time, where the only really issue on speed was the limitation ot HDD access being shared on the same drive, but once up and running, they were stable and worked flawlessly.

If you are running a high end server with ESX (meant for enterprise level virtual servers), the end use wont even know they are on a VM and everything would function as it would on a normal server. More and more, virtualization is becoming common place, so much so, that half the cloud is now virtualized.

I'm not playing Crysis or anything intense like that, but the whole point of virtualization is to maximize the use of your idling CPU and hardware which probably never exceeds 50% on nearly any task. It wasn't designed with gaming in mind, but it is possible up to an extent.

Edited September 22, 2010 by digip

[VaKo]

While I do agree with you, the problem is GPU virtualization, I/O and CPU are done deals, and any job that needs these can be done in a VM with no problem, I would even go as far as saying it is preferable to run these types of jobs inside VM's over a bare metal install.

But for tasks which need the GPU? Both AMD and NVIDIA had demonstrated this inside ESX and your can buy Parallels Workstation 4.0 Extreme which does it. I'm actually suprised the field is as far along as it is, but it is still early days.

http://www.usenix.org/event/wiov08/tech/fu...wty/dowty_html/

http://www.nvidia.com/object/sli_multi_os.html

http://graphics.stanford.edu/~yoel/notes/gpu-osr.pdf

However, VirtualBox, today, is not going to be any use for playing modern games which require anything more than a budget GPU.

[Infiltrator]

VM's are generally slower on home desktop machines due to configuration and hardware limits in use, but not all desktop machines were created equal. I can have 5-10 VM's open at the same time with not much noticeable difference in performance. I've even had 3 Server 2003 machines with Exchange going at the same time, where the only really issue on speed was the limitation ot HDD access being shared on the same drive, but once up and running, they were stable and worked flawlessly.

If you are running a high end server with ESX (meant for enterprise level virtual servers), the end use wont even know they are on a VM and everything would function as it would on a normal server. More and more, virtualization is becoming common place, so much so, that half the cloud is now virtualized.

I'm not playing Crysis or anything intense like that, but the whole point of virtualization is to maximize the use of your idling CPU and hardware which probably never exceeds 50% on nearly any task. It wasn't designed with gaming in mind, but it is possible up to an extent.

I agree with you VMs are generally slower and their a purpose to reduce server hardware costs by consolidating them into individual virtual machines, hosted on a single physical machine.

I think it may take sometime until they can fully support game applications. For the time being, they are better suited for enterprises wanting to consolidate their servers and to reduce their running costs.

[digip]

Just for shits and giggles I did a little test. I created 2 virtual machines.

1 - Vista x64 Business, 5gig ram, 2 cpu, with Warsow 5.0. Game wouldnt load, but Aero and all other bells and whistles working fine, just gave me OpenGL errors trying to run Warsow. I think if I can figure out how to create my settings before loading, like telling it what screen size I want and colors, etc, before launching it, I can probably get it to run. For now, its a no go. Haven't tried 4.2 though.

2 - VM using XP 32bit, 3gig ram, 2 cpu, with Warsow 4.2, works! Full screen 1440x900, full color res, etc, and playable!! Keyboard response is a bit slow, and if I hit too may keys at once, my Mobo lets out a system bell sound, but other than that, its working.

I'm going to drop 5.0 in there and see if I can get it working. I'll let you know what I find out.

I highly doubt something like Counterstrike will run since its so bulky as it is, but I'll put money down that Doom and Quake will run fine. I wouldn't be surprised if even URT99 runs ok in there.

My host system is WIn7x64 Pro with 16gig ram, 2.8ghz AMD Athlon II x2 (will be upgrading to 6 core soon) with an onboard ATI HD 4200. I also use no swap file on the host, since I have so much ram, so the only real swapping is the VM's mem itself. If I had SSD's I think it would be even faster in the VM side of things, but so far this is working like a charm in XP. Screw Vista anyway. Maybe I'll try a Win7 VM too, see if that fairs any better than Vista did with Warsow 5.0.

Edit: Ok, I got 5.0 working and had to drop some settings down for smoother play. Trick is to find a server where your ping is under 90 or it starts to just get laggy, as where normally I can play with a ping of 135 to 150 with no issues outside a VM. Res is at 1440x900, 2xaf quality, but textures are brought down a little and all fancy lighting reduced with faster vertexes, etc. Default settings just crush the CPU and mobo screams constantly unless I drop the quality down on the games graphic settings.

Im going to dig out my original Quake CD and see if it will load up. Doom should play no problem, but I only have it on floppy somewhere and no single installer to try it from. Maybe find one online to test. Ive got a DukeNuken somewhere too I need to find.

Edit: Well scratch that, Quake wont run on NT, needs DOS, so I'll have to make a quick win98 machine to test it on. Wonder if DukeNukem (if I can find the disc) will run in XP.

Skulltag Doom II works fine. Any games I should try while I'm at it. Preferably downloadable, legal and free games to try out.

Edited September 24, 2010 by digip

[VaKo]

Try DirectQ instead of Win98+Quake. I tried Warsaw 5.0 and it runs on very basic settings, but freezes and locks when you try and move too quickly. Alien Arena killed VirtualBox when trying to drop into the 3D engine. This is on a XP VM with 1GM of RAM, 2 cores and the 3D adaptor. Host is a AMD 1055T, 8GB RAM, VM's running from an Intel x25m SSD, and a nVidia 285GT 1GB.

Next step is to try Parallels Workstation 4.0 Extreme as it can virtualize the GPU, but my original assumption that anything which requires more than a budget GPU will not be playable in a VM seems to be correct.

[digip]

Try DirectQ instead of Win98+Quake. I tried Warsaw 5.0 and it runs on very basic settings, but freezes and locks when you try and move too quickly. Alien Arena killed VirtualBox when trying to drop into the 3D engine. This is on a XP VM with 1GM of RAM, 2 cores and the 3D adaptor. Host is a AMD 1055T, 8GB RAM, VM's running from an Intel x25m SSD, and a nVidia 285GT 1GB.

Next step is to try Parallels Workstation 4.0 Extreme as it can virtualize the GPU, but my original assumption that anything which requires more than a budget GPU will not be playable in a VM seems to be correct.

Problem is I cant get quake to even install, says wont run on NT(the installer) and needs DOS. If I could get it to install, I think I would be ok.

edit: Found a Free Quake shareware, some levels say call IDG to unlock, but its working. Can only do 1024 max size though, not limitation of vm, but game code itself I imagine. Works fine though with no issues. Screen flickers when menu is open, but during play no flicker or issues whatsoever.

Looks like I can change the width and height from the command line using glquake, but its not accepting my parameters so I dont have the syntax correct or something

edit: This is awesome. I got quake working in windows mode at 1440x900x32bpp, smooth and no cpu issues. I really need the 6 core though and I could probably do warsow 5.0 with no problems at that point in XP. By the way, Im using somethign called joequake-gl to do full screen high res for Quake.

Edited September 24, 2010 by digip

[digip]

Going to try this next. Duke Nukem 32 port: http://www.rancidmeat.com/project.php3?id=1 Ok.

edit: Thats only a mod and not the full game. Found a full version, which works, but a little jittery at times. I really need a quad core or better for what I'm doing, but I think if I had a beefier CPU, no problem playing most average games, just nothing super high end without a better GPU(since its the on-board one, it works surprisingly well though). Sucks cause I gave my mom my old machine when hers had some issues and it had the quad core in it. I never got around to swapping it into this machine. Looks like a NewEgg visit is in the works..

Edited September 24, 2010 by digip

[Infiltrator]

Going to try this next. Duke Nukem 32 port: http://www.rancidmeat.com/project.php3?id=1 Ok.

edit: Thats only a mod and not the full game. Found a full version, which works, but a little jittery at times. I really need a quad core or better for what I'm doing, but I think if I had a beefier CPU, no problem playing most average games, just nothing super high end without a better GPU(since its the on-board one, it works surprisingly well though). Sucks cause I gave my mom my old machine when hers had some issues and it had the quad core in it. I never got around to swapping it into this machine. Looks like a NewEgg visit is in the works..

If budget is not an issue for you, you could building a new system with the latest i7 CPU on it, 12 cores and plenty of performance. I just had a quick look and read through the Parallel stuff and its amazing in terms of what it can do, the only issue I see with i7 is that it has no support for VT-d. So it won't have direct I/O access.

[digip]

If budget is not an issue for you, you could building a new system with the latest i7 CPU on it, 12 cores and plenty of performance. I just had a quick look and read through the Parallel stuff and its amazing in terms of what it can do, the only issue I see with i7 is that it has no support for VT-d. So it won't have direct I/O access.

Budget is always an issue for me. I'm poor, but just shelled out the money for the 6 core from new egg. I'm also getting CS5 so I can take advantage of all my ram that is going to waste at the moment. 16 gigs and photoshop CS2 wont use more than 2.xx gigs of it. Sux.

[VaKo]

I have an AMD 6 core 1055T, very nice little chip, fast, runs at 31C and the CPU never bottlenecks on multi-threaded apps.

[digip]

I have an AMD 6 core 1055T, very nice little chip, fast, runs at 31C and the CPU never bottlenecks on multi-threaded apps.

Yeah, I oredered the AMD|PH II X6 1090T AM3 Black edition.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16819103849

edit: Upgraded the CPU today. Played Duke Nukem, Doom and Quake without a hitch. Ran smooth with no issues whatsoever and no CPU bell from the MOBO any more, so Games cane be done, I just don't have a really high end GPU, so if I upgraded it, I could probably get away with most games without any issues. Have a quad core or above is highly needed for such though.

Edited September 28, 2010 by digip