Buckaroo

Agreed with above, your CPU going to 80% or even 100% (especially for an INTEL CPU) isn't unheard of especially when playing a graphic-intensive game. However, your computer shutting down on its own usually is a sign of an overheating issue and it's doing that as a auto-preventative to melting or destroying the CPU. The listed specs of your computer should be able to play pretty much any game out there on the market today including Star Citizen, so I would recommend the following: A dedicated SSD for Star Citizen and in general SSD's are going to make your system perform better overall. I use M.2 and standard SATA SSD's in my computer except for one single HDD that's only there for storage of files--never accessed for running applications or games. The Intel Core i9 can really benefit from a dedicated AIO cooler if you don't have one already, and a case that takes airflow into consideration. In a standard tower case you'll want to bring in cool air in from the bottom and/or front and vent it out the back and top. Some cases are better than others when it comes to air flow, but so long as you have the right amount of fans you should be OK. One tip: when configuring what speed for your fans I recommend that the airflow INTO the case be higher than the airflow OUT.

This guy I think nailed the overall frustrations I have and most that have spoken up have with the CCU (and other) changes CIG made maybe better than I have earlier in this thread. Like him, I still love the development and the idea of the game, and more so this gaming community here. But I really would like to see more stability improvements and better fleshed out game mechanics that are standard in most MMO's (trading for example) while allowing us to play the game as we want to, with the ships we want to while still in an "Alpha" stage. (The title "Star Citizen is Screwed" is just a click-bait title, I don't think he actually says SC is screwed at any point.)

Okay, so when are you opening the box and showing the goods?

I had been going back and forth the last few months deciding whether to apply either a (non-warbond) CCU to the Mercury Starrunner or a (warbond) CCU to the Ares Inferno--both CCU's from my F7C-M Superhornet. When I say "back and forth", I mean I would be going to my buy-backs every few days the last few months adding one or the other to my cart and almost re-buying one or the other, but never actually claiming either due to my indecision. Up until this week, the CCU to the Mercury was $45 and the CCU to the Inferno was $20. Now they're $80 and $70 respectively, and I bought both in 2019 when the ships were first concepted (I checked my receipts). This is probably why this change took me for surprise so hard and caused such frustration with CIG because I had finally made that decision to go forward with the MSR (thanks to some feedback and input by Imperium members), but now it's almost twice as much to buy back. Whatever the "fix" that CIG applied to correct this so-called "bug" does appear to affect all CCU's types now. Other non-CCU buy-backs that I have are not affected as far as I can tell (warbond or not). Just to make sure I didn't loose it, I did re-buy back my CCU to the RSI Scorpius for the time being because its price hasn't increased (yet), but I expect it will once the ship is released in an upcoming patch.

Yep, which is exactly why I think this change is mostly on the part of greed, and not much else by CIG. There could have been a lot of better implemented solutions, compromises that didn't alienate and basically throw mud in our faces--the backers--who have been supporting their business and Chris's dream. I don't think I'll be giving them anymore money at this point, and I will be stepping away from Star Citizen for awhile. I'll still lurk and help around here and watch some update videos, but I'm done playing CIG's abusive games.

For me personally, I will buy CCU's and hold onto them (hardly ever applying them) until a new ship that intrigues me comes along. If I need additional cash, I'll melt the CCU and pick up a new CCU to the new ship. I then hold onto these buy-back CCU's for the whole purpose that I'd like a choice down the road when I decide which CCU to apply once we know more about how CIG finally decides how ships should work, game mechanics, etc. I never really used it for the "CCU game" that every one references. For example, I have owned a F7C-M SuperHornet package since they originally released the ship, but have bought CCU's from that ship to the Mercury, Ares (both of them), Scorpius, and a couple others. I was holding onto each in my buy-back till I was certain exactly which ship I wanted to actually end up flying in the 'Verse because melting ships is a pain in the ass in my opinion and you loose the upgrades (CCU's) that were attached to the original ship if you want to start over. Each of those CCU's (that I've held onto because I didn't know which direction or major changes CIG would take with some of these ships) are now all basically useless because they are all 2-4 times more than their original price. I'm not made of money, so I have to pick and choose what I buy, and having these CCU's gave me the choice of what to fly eventually without needing to hold onto them all at once.

Personally, I think it's mostly about greed, otherwise there's a host of other solutions they could have done to limit the grey/black market. It's no longer about pledging to support the game, it's how much money can they raise (as if 500 million wasn't enough).

Still, a note saying "Hey, your last day to buy-back CCU's at their original price is XX/XX/XXXX" would have been nice and another example where CIG fails to communicate with their backers. I also sent a message to the support team stating the above and asking for another chance to buy back at least one of these CCU pledges at their original price... will see what they say.

https://support.robertsspaceindustries.com/hc/en-us/articles/115013195207-Pledge-Buy-Back-tool Buy backs will now show the full "price tag" associated with upgrading the ship, not the original price you paid for the CCU (apparently warbond or not). Personally, not very happy about this move by CIG. I understand it because of the "CCU game" people play (myself included a couple times), but I've had a few CCU buy-backs that were there only for when I finally decided on a ship that I really wanted. The only reason I melted them is because something else caught my eye and I wanted the choice later down the road after CIG finally made up their own damn minds on different gameplay mechanics. Example: I had a CCU from a F7C-M to the Mercury for $45... now it's $80. I had a similar upgrade to the Inferno Warbond that was $20... now it's $70. All of those CCU's are now basically dead. I'm a bit furious about this move by them, to be honest, and obviously it's a very greedy (in my opinion) move by them.

Agreed with others, right now 30-40 FPS isn't bad for a good system (I'm also running a similar setup as you and see the same FPS running on Windows 10). The only other part of a computer build I've seen help is to have a SSD that's specific to and only has Star Citizen loaded on it. Edit: I should note I'm running the game on a 3440 x 1440 monitor

I think you hit it on the head: just a large mobile home with the ability to also collect and refine quantum and fuel for not only itself but the ship(s) and/or ground vehicles that are kept inside. In other words, a moving hangar with the ability to refuel (manually). The Oddyssey may not excel at exploring, but it could still interest those that just want to move around and take all their stuff with them albeit an expensive option to do so. That said, the CCU to the Odyssey ended up being the same amount as the [warbond] CCU to the Polaris from the Perseus I picked up at last year's sale. I got the CCU to the Odyssey just in case it might work out better for me (I wanted a ship that can be my mobile home-away-from-home) than the Polaris, but I think the Polaris is still is way better deal.

If the Q&A confirmed anything it's that the Liberator is a small ship and ground vehicle transport ship, not a carrier (nor a capital) with a few amenities. Although you can, it's not designed to launch ships from its decks all the time and instead transport them from point A to point B.

I have to agree with others comments on Spectrum about the ship. The 400i doesn't seem like a "contender" to either the Aquila or Corsair due to its lack of weapons and cargo space, and rather it's a hybrid between a Cutlass and 600iE. Not a bad design, don't get me wrong, but it's not what CIG thinks it is. I think that's usually a given these days as CIG's marketing team doesn't seem to communicate with their actual developers, promising the world and giving a continent worth only. I've been wanting a semi-smaller ship that able to do a few things at once. I was in love with the Mercury Starrunner--till it became a bulgy ship with (I think) unneeded underneath passage-ways. I was hoping the 400i would have about twice the current cargo capacity and it would have been right where I'd want it to be. But alas, the search continues.

I've been going back and forth whether the Liberator would be better for my needs than the Polaris. I mostly just want a ship with a hangar and lots of room that I can keep all my stuff with me. While the Polaris has the enclosed hangar and garage and tons of amenities, it also needs a rather large crew to operate. The Liberator has hangars (out in the open) with a garage AND cargo space with room for all my stuff while not requiring a large crew, but not as many amenities. Long run, I'm still leaning towards my Polaris...

If I can make it I will. I happened to already have plans for a good part of that day, but curious if anyone knows when the actual events start? When's the big speech by Chris I wonder?