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?

For now, I think starting off in the latest landing area on Orison (assuming your computer can handle all the effects that are going on there) or the space station above might be best. It's in the middle of the Stanton system so your travel time to other locations around the system will hopefully be minimal. Long term, this is one of the reasons I pledged for a Polaris so I could have a roaming home that I could hold all my stuff and a smaller ship or few with me.

I created a thread in Spectrum regarding my own interpretation of the deck layouts for the Polaris at the following link. I won't copy-n-paste what I posted there, but you can take a look and read it yourself. Enjoy! https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/65300/thread/inside-the-polaris

I'm not an alien-ship design lover either. I'll stick to the normal ships that I'm used to. That said, the concept is really cool, and I'm glad that they (CIG) is expanding the norms in the 'Verse! Now if they could take some of those cool affects and features and apply them to all the other ships, that would greeeeeaaaat...

The Polaris lost its limited status recently during the Invictus sale. This has been the only capital or sub-cap sized ship that has held any interest for me (that may change with the rumored Anvil capital ship), mostly for the hangar that I can use to house another ship. I'm not interested in the Polaris for the combat (although I can use it for that too) but more for a "home-away-from-home" ship to get me around, explore a little, and possibly do some search and rescue. I also wondered about using the Polaris as a (very expensive) military transport ship--kind of like the 890Jump but military focused instead of VIP's. I looked over everything in my hangar at the time and noted that if I used credits to buy a Carrack-to-Perseus CCU (I already had a cheap C2-to-Carrack CCU), I only needed to spend $25 more (new cash) to buy a Perseus-to-Polaris CCU (war-bond). And on top of that I'd still have a F7C-M with an upgrade to either the Ares or Scorpius or other liked-priced ship that I could fit in the Polaris' hangar Anyways, it was a no-brainer for me and I spent the $25. I now have a path to owning this magnificent ship, and I am once again waiting for ships to be added to the 'Verse before applying multiple CCU's. Till then, I'll putz around in the Hercules C2 and F7C-M. Anyways, just wanted to share...

I completely agree, Zeabz. The cargo aspect is awesome, and design of the Hercules is great. But it's just so EMPTY on the upper deck. I had created some alternative versions just for fun that included better uses of the hallways made into rooms with a central walkway (think like the Carrack). My ideas included like a better lounge, better crew accommodations, simple seats for personal transport, or just rooms for more cargo. My last thought was maybe a larger elevator to bring ranger-or-similar sized vehicles for storage up-top too. You know, ideas to make a transport ship be able to do more transport-like duties. I ended up deleting the thread because all I got back on Spectrum was literally hate for even having ideas.

I was expecting bigger components for a heavy fighter (think Ares or Vanguards). Cool concept, not sure it's worth getting rid of my SuperHornet yet. For the same price, I can get an Ares Inferno which I like a lot too.

Depending on the price, might just have found the replacement for my SuperHornet that I've been holding onto since they first released the F7C-M... Really liking the look.

I was pretty un-impressed when the MSR modeled was released. It just got way too huge for what I wanted, even if it was still fast. The inside layout to me was also weird, and with a few other decisions made I have yet to apply my MSR CCU (and may not at all). Now with the Hercules, I'm once again wondering who the hell is making all these stupid decisions with the idiotic excuse that there needs to be difference because of "balance". Why can't the C2 have the third cockpit seat? Why shouldn't the C2 have the bunk beds? Why can't the M2 have the same CSU? Why can't the M2 have a kitchette? Because the C2 and M2 must have "balance" and there's gotta be a reason for $120 difference. This could have been a simple and EASY difference between the two. Start with the C2 design, but include the third cockpit seat and third bed. (I'd also say the top-side layout could have been a LOT better designed to allow more facilities/etc.) Next for the M2, leave the top-side the same, but in the bottom carve out a specific area for troop seats and armory along the sides that doesn't allow cargo to be positioned as wide as in the C2. It would still allow both tanks to fit in, but not the same amount of cargo as the C2--You'd also get to keep the kitchenette in the M2. But no, someone has decided to make it hard and make (in my opinion) idiotic design decisions. It's because of this I've lost a lot of interest in CIG and their ships.