KSP Interstellar Extended Continued Development Thread

[okder]

probably because of law of conservation of energy?

i.e. in essence we use reactor energy to increase velocity of craft relative to atmosphere,

we have external limitation of drag and amount of atmosphere captured as propellant of course.

i understand that compressor(precooler) is probably need for thermal turbojet, and may be not needed for ATTILA.

but with such addition effectiveness should be in favor of turbojet due to it specific.

part of problem is that very same engine gives more thrust when any other propellant is used (high speed/high altitude).

again correct solution is turn thermal turbojet into variable isp mode:

less than 50% thrust it works as currently (only with change that 50% thrust it gives 100% current thrust)

with more than 50% thrust if precooler/compressor available it lowers isp in favor of thrust (while enough of propellant income is available).

P.S. with magnetic fusion (Deuterium-lithium6) ATTILA significantly better than thermal turbojet (isp is lower, but you can easy compensate with additional intakes)

Edited October 8, 2015 by okder

[FreeThinker]

Magnetic nozzles shouldn't produce *high* thrust with fusion- the reactors don't produce *that many* usable charged particles... The plasma in any fusion reactor we can currently conceive of is very low-density: so while fusion produces a lot of charged particles relative to its fuel consumption mass-wise, it doesn't consume that much mass or produce that many charged particles in total...

I know, but by High Isp I didn't mean super high Isp and thrust (TWR > 1) I ment more like 32000 Isp like the discovery magnetic fusion.

Notice it can do a neat trick, which is to heat (ionised) Propellant to high temperatures and expell magneticly. Seems to me any propellant could be used as well, no need to limit oursselves to Hydrogen.

I intend to implment this as the first generation Fusion Rocket (and replace the exisitng ICF reactor which is based on nothing real). This technology is a nice intermediate between thermal nozzle and ful charged particle magnetic nozzles.

This will allow VISTA to be moved higher in the tech tree. Perhaps with an good model, I could also include a Deadlus kind of ICF (inertial confinement fusion)

- - - Updated - - -

well Turbojet still worse than attila (if attila did not changed, in sandbox mode) on speed <300m/s and >1000m/s, or on any speed if just ignore thermal->electrical loss (inertial containment reactor 1.25).

what needs to be fixed ISP->thrust balance (you don't need much isp on take off, but you need much thrust, may be use GIMBAL control to control thrust/isp balance instead of GIMBAL?, just experimental)

    velocityCurve
    {
        key = 0 1 0 0
        key = 400 0.8 0 0
        key = 800 0.9 0 0
        key = 1700 0 0 0 //!!!! this needs fixing, it's wrong
    }

curve should depends on reactor core temperature, i.e. higher temperature , then higher speed where thrust is good,

lowest thrust (both takeoff and high speed) should be the same as ATTILA without thermal->electrical loss (with same ISP set, if not enough intake atmosphere, ISP should go higher (until reactor limit), thrust lower), to fix compressing issues, compressor module could be added to precooler(s) ,and precooler/compressors should require power, and they probably should influence on ATTILA too (i.e. ATTILA with atmosphere should perform worse than it is now) .

This curve isn't used at all. Instead it internally defines it's own curve based on core temeperature, jet engine type and unlocked jet technology. Also, I still need to adjust the efficency of the ATILLA which is too high.

Edited October 8, 2015 by FreeThinker

[okder]

This curve isn't used at all. Instead it internally defines it's own curve based on core temeperature, jet engine type and unlocked jet technology. Also, I still need to adjust the efficency of the ATILLA which is too high.

then remove it please (just to be clear, i mean remove unused curve from files, not ATTILA, or ATTILA mode)

but take into account that on 1200m/s (in sandbox mode) turbojet now gives ~30% of maximum thrust ( on Kerbin, ~30000m, i can remeasure again to be certain), while ATTILA gives 100% thrust,

which with magnetic fusion is the same as maximum turbojet,

turbojet takeoff thrust is also 30-40% (while ATTILA 100%),

on 2000m/s turbojet gives <5% thrust, (but it's not enough atmosphere to provide 100% for ATTILA anyway)

i think that with high temperature core reactors turbojet should have better performance on high speed,

and with precooler/compressor better performance at takeoff/dense atmosphere in exchange for loss most ISP (again high temperature core reactors allows that exchange).

i.e. if you not going improve turbojet performance you need to lower ATTILA performance by 3 times, or it still be better with magnetic fusion.

(better means lower delta-V for going in lowest stable orbit on Kerbin/Eve from point where atmospheric engine becomes useless (no more speed/altitude gain from it))

as i pointed now thermal turbojet limited at takeoff point and at high speed thrust compared to ATTILA, and at such point ATTILA approximately 3 times better.

i did get to orbit using ATTILA purely on atmospheric and inertial fusion, but with current turbojet i still needed 100m/s more to add with other propellant, and charged particle generator efficiency 34.60%.

Edited October 10, 2015 by okder

[FreeThinker]

The problem of the performance of the ATILA compaired to the turbojet is partly explained by the air intake speed which works too well when standing still. The Turbojet performance depend on the large degree on air speed. The Atilla does not have this limitation and basicly can use atmosphere as a propellant long as the air intakes suplies it.

Edited October 8, 2015 by FreeThinker

[okder]

The problem of the performance of the ATILA compaired to the turbojet is partly explained by the air intake speed which works too well when standing still. The Turbojet performance depend on the large degree on air speed. The Atilla does not have this limitation and basicly can use atmosphere as a propellant long as the air intakes suplies it.

there are two bottlenecks:

1. at 0m/s, and you can solve it with compressor build into precooler, and lowering isp (i.e. pushing more air into turbojet, it will be heated to lower temperature, but still gives more thrust at 0m/s)

2. >1200m/s some thrust can be achieved same way as previously described, and i don't understand why 77000K reactor core gives such low thrust at 2000m/s speed)

i.e. i think that on high temperature core reactors (fusion, gas, antimatter) turbojet should outperforms ATTILA on same energy input on all speed range less 2000m/s,

provided you have powered precooler/compressor and turbojet could lower it's ISP to get more thrust (ATTILA has lower ISP than turbojet on high temperature core reactors, but this only rises question how ATTILA could performs so well on high speeds).

P.S.2 you could limit thermal turbojet/thermal nozzle/magnetic nozzle ability to be attached to any part except reactor himself, just add radial attachment capability,

for ability to put 2 symmetric those engines, with some other (VISTA) in the middle.

P.S.3 and remember that ATTILA besides smaller size and mass (for using same power as turbojet) and ability to attached everywhere has ALSO much faster reaction to thrust change, that allows it to be used for attitude control (with ThrottleControlledAvionics mod),

i.e. it's too good engine already to be also best atmospheric engine, so its atmospheric thrust by my opinion should be nerfed by 35-40% and turbojet lowest thrust below 2000m/s should be same as ATTILA(i.e. improved) with same input power on high temperature reactor (i think before 1000 science research it should be same on speed below 1000m/s, highest trust/highest ISP should be better (they already are if include ATTILA nerf) ),

i think compressor(precooler) should be required by ATTILA too, because i don't understand how other way to get air from intakes to ATTILA engines (otherwise sectional area of air pipe should be same order of magnitude as intakes themselves)

Edited October 8, 2015 by okder

[SciMan]

Well, the TORY produces thrust now, so that's fixed.

I've observed that the other thing it produces is extremely high amounts of heat during operation in atmospheric mode.

This is causing temperature gauges to show up on parts of the test craft I used. Continued operation leads to those parts overheating and exploding, which leads me to believe that steady-state operation in atmosphere with a TORY engine is impossible unless using parts with an extremely high temperature tolerance or something like that.

Regarding the ICF reactor:

The ICF reactor is in fact based on something real. Nothing in them breaks the laws of physics, and the concept of how to make one is well known.

The National Ignition Facility was built to study inertially-confined fusion reactions, and it uses a bunch of very high power lasers to start the reactions.

The ICF reactor and DT-VISTA engine both use inertial confinement fusion reactions.

The DT-VISTA uses a D-T ICF reaction to generate large amounts of thrust, while the ICF reactor captures the products to convert them to electrical power (via charged-particle generator).

If you're going to change one, the same criticism applies to the other one.

In fact, the DT-VISTA shouldn't be restricted to using the D-T reaction. Anything the ICF reactor can fuse, the DT-VISTA should be able to fuse as well.

If you do end up removing the ICF reactor, the normal fusion reactors should have the jump-start ability added to them.

Regarding the ATTILA being OP for atmosphere:

Removing the ATTILA thruster entirely would be a rash decision. Removing the atmospheric modes from the electric thrusters would be a better idea.

The only electric thruster that should be able to operate IN an atmosphere would be the ATTILA, as it's an arcjet, but none of them should be able to run directly on IntakeAtm.

The way to get thrust from an ATTILA in-atmosphere while not using propellant would then be to run it off of LqdNitrogen and harvest that from the atmosphere via atmospheric scoops.

And while we're talking about electric thruster propellants, no engine should be able to use Lithium as propellant. It sucks to burn off all your Lithium in a few seconds when you have a high-powered fusion craft that uses He3, Tritium, or Lithium.

[okder]

Well, the TORY produces thrust now, so that's fixed.

Regarding the ATTILA being OP for atmosphere:

Removing the ATTILA thruster entirely would be a rash decision. Removing the atmospheric modes from the electric thrusters would be a better idea.

i hope only decrease atmospheric propellant thrust by 40%, and require precooler/compressor (there is no way how to support so much propellant without compressing/cooling it first to such engine).

but turbojet should be boosted to be better on all speed <2000m/s (and with research <1000 science better on any speed <1000m/s) with same power input.

P.S.

small electric flyers with remote energy source could be useful, but they should not be too much better normal self sufficient planes.

[Cairan]

If you're going to change one, the same criticism applies to the other one.

In fact, the DT-VISTA shouldn't be restricted to using the D-T reaction. Anything the ICF reactor can fuse, the DT-VISTA should be able to fuse as well.

If you do end up removing the ICF reactor, the normal fusion reactors should have the jump-start ability added to them.

Regarding the ATTILA being OP for atmosphere:

Removing the ATTILA thruster entirely would be a rash decision. Removing the atmospheric modes from the electric thrusters would be a better idea.

The only electric thruster that should be able to operate IN an atmosphere would be the ATTILA, as it's an arcjet, but none of them should be able to run directly on IntakeAtm.

The way to get thrust from an ATTILA in-atmosphere while not using propellant would then be to run it off of LqdNitrogen and harvest that from the atmosphere via atmospheric scoops.

And while we're talking about electric thruster propellants, no engine should be able to use Lithium as propellant. It sucks to burn off all your Lithium in a few seconds when you have a high-powered fusion craft that uses He3, Tritium, or Lithium.

Amen to all of the above.

[Northstar1989]

Removing the ATTILA thruster entirely would be a rash decision. Removing the atmospheric modes from the electric thrusters would be a better idea.

The only electric thruster that should be able to operate IN an atmosphere would be the ATTILA, as it's an arcjet, but none of them should be able to run directly on IntakeAtm

I agree. Wait, when did we actually allow electric thrusters to run directly on intake atmosphere?

That doesn't really work well, because the magnetic fields need to be pre-calibrated to a consistent fuel-mixture. And atmosphere is, well, anything but consistent. It varies in molecular composition and water-content by altitude and weather patterns. Aside from the question of how the atmosphere would be routed to the electric thrusters in the first place by the air intakes (this would need to SERIOUSLY increase the drag from air intakes to even be considered- jets work on a moving airstream, but electric thrusters require the propellant flow to be decelerated to a standstill first- which of course creates a strong negative acceleration on the entire craft...) the variability of the atmosphere would be a MAJOR problem that would significantly impair efficiency...

That being said, the issue with jet engines is that, because they don't stop an airflow entirely, and have a limited range of temperatures and pressures they can operate within, they have trouble operating at very high speeds. Which is why it usually makes sense to utilize Hybrid Turbojets and switch to internal propellant at high atmospheric speeds- especially if you are playing in Real Solar System where orbital velocity is much higher...

Regards,

Northstar

[aihaw974]

Hi there! Sorry for changing the subject, but I'm experiencing some trouble with the ISRU. In particular, it is about Munar surface Alumina extraction/conversion to Aluminium/Oxidizer. When I launch the AlO electrolyse, no more Al/Ox is added. I remarked that the ability of the ISRU to contain Alumina disappeard. It says that the extraction is being done, but if there's no place anyway... When warping, the ISRU stops mining. Can you help me please?

Edited October 9, 2015 by aihaw974

[westamastaflash]

I'm getting strange NREs with the Swap Fuel and Switch Mode buttons when in the VAB.

NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at FNPlugin.InterstellarFissionMSRGC.EditorSwapFuel () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at BaseEvent.Invoke () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at UIPartActionButton.OnClick () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

(Filename:  Line: 4294967295)


NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at FNPlugin.InterstellarFissionMSRGC.EditorSwapFuel () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at BaseEvent.Invoke () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at UIPartActionButton.OnClick () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

[FreeThinker]

I'm getting strange NREs with the Swap Fuel and Switch Mode buttons when in the VAB.

NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at FNPlugin.InterstellarFissionMSRGC.EditorSwapFuel () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at BaseEvent.Invoke () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at UIPartActionButton.OnClick () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

(Filename:  Line: 4294967295)


NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at FNPlugin.InterstellarFissionMSRGC.EditorSwapFuel () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at BaseEvent.Invoke () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at UIPartActionButton.OnClick () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

WHen ever posting a error, always describe in detail what parts you used. KSPI is huge and changing, so you must help me

[westamastaflash]

WHen ever posting a error, always describe in detail what parts you used. KSPI is huge and changing, so you must help me

I get the error with both the Molten Salt and Gas Core reactors, by themselves, in the VAB. It's likely that there's a conflicting mod in my modlist so I will try to pare it down and figure it out.

[RenewableRocket]

Hey FreeThinker,

I just started up the latest release, 1.5.10 and it seems like you forgot to include the fix in the WarpPlugin\Patches\HeatManagement.cfg

On line 26 to be "@PART[Heatsink250n]:NEEDS[HeatManagement]:FOR[WarpPlugin]" instead of the erroneous "@PART[Heatsink125n]:NEEDS[HeatManagement]:FOR[WarpPlugin]" as this error puts two FNRadiators on the 1.25m part and none on the 2.5m parts available from Heat Management

Just letting you know, already fixed the error on my install, but others might have problems.

[FreeThinker]

Thanks for reminding me

[Trolllception]

FreeThinker: Your inbox is full. To continue our discussion, the issue with the Magnetic Nozzle occurs when using a DUMBO reactor. If I use the Dusty Plasma the magnetic nozzle works correctly.

[okder]

FreeThinker: Your inbox is full. To continue our discussion, the issue with the Magnetic Nozzle occurs when using a DUMBO reactor. If I use the Dusty Plasma the magnetic nozzle works correctly.

i have incorrectly thrust (with magnetic nozzle 1.25 size) setting (it gives even with 0.1% thrust 30k and same up to 100%) with inertial containment fusion 1.25 size (3.6 mw), bug is introduced in 1.5.?

DUMBO reactor is out of balance as it gives 1000 times more power than other reactors (even better than huge antimatter reactor).

probably MJ/GJ setting applied incorrectly.

Edited October 10, 2015 by okder

[FreeThinker]

For the Magnetic Nozzle I appear to have mixed up the Max and Min Isp, causing it to be stuck. This is easily fixed

DUMBO is technically correct. Fully upgraded it generates 14 GW. Combined with it's relatively low core temperature of 'only' 2500 K is generate a lot of thrust.

[FreeThinker]

[h=2]Version 1.5.11 for Kerbal Space Program 1.0.4[/h] Released on 2015-10-11

• Fixed Magnetic Nozzle Maximum Isp
  

[okder]

DUMBO is technically correct. Fully upgraded it generates 14 GW. Combined with it's relatively low core temperature of 'only' 2500 K is generate a lot of thrust.

it described here (or even early)

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/111159-BETA-1-0-4-KSP-Interstellar-Extended-1-5-10-%28last-updated-07-10-2015%29-Improved-Turbojet-Power?p=2022117&viewfull=1#post2022117

looks like need something like

@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[InterstellarFissionMSRGC]]:NEEDS[NearFutureElectrical|SETI]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{
    @MODULE[InterstellarFissionMSRGC]
    {
        @PowerOutput *= 0.002
        @upgradedPowerOutput *= 0.002
        @neutronEmbrittlementDivider *= 0.002
        %fuelUsePerMJMult = 500
        %wasteHeatMultiplier = 0.002
    }
}

in USI_NF_Mode.cfg for DUMBO

and take into account it's price (65k) compared to LargeSaltReactor.cfg (1281k)

i.e. for me it's 4000 times more powerfull, and 20 times cheaper.

other way you could delete USI_NF_Mode.cfg (i.e. compatibility with NFT power ratings), but prices still needs to be fixed.

when decision about atmospheric balance (ATTILA/turbojet) with high temperature reactors will be available?

Edited October 11, 2015 by okder

[FreeThinker]

I appears I forget all about NFT / seti mode

what appears to be missing was:

@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[InterstellarFissionNTR]]:NEEDS[NearFutureElectrical|SETI]:FOR[WarpPlugin]
{
    @MODULE[InterstellarFissionMSRGC]
    {
        @PowerOutput *= 0.002
        @upgradedPowerOutput *= 0.002
        @neutronEmbrittlementDivider *= 0.002
        %fuelUsePerMJMult = 500
        %wasteHeatMultiplier = 0.002
    }
}

- - - Updated - - -

when decision about atmospheric balance (ATTILA/turbojet) with high temperature reactors will be available?

I reduced the efficiency of the ATTILA in the last patch (available already on Kerbalstuff, curse seem to be lagging behind).

Edited October 11, 2015 by FreeThinker

[okder]

[TABLE=width: 800]

[TR]

[TD]engine/speed[/TD]

[TD]0 m/s[/TD]

[TD]300[/TD]

[TD]525[/TD]

[TD]800[/TD]

[TD]1000[/TD]

[TD]1200

[/TD]

[TD]1600[/TD]

[TD]1800[/TD]

[TD]2000

[/TD]

[TD]2100

[/TD]

[TD]2150

[/TD]

[TD]2175m/s

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]ATTILA[/TD]

[TD]1750[/TD]

[TD]1760[/TD]

[TD]1770[/TD]

[TD]1770[/TD]

[TD]1770[/TD]

[TD]1770

[/TD]

[TD]1770*[/TD]

[TD]1770*[/TD]

[TD]1770*

[/TD]

[TD]1400*

[/TD]

[TD]1000*

[/TD]

[TD]950*KN

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]turbojet[/TD]

[TD]700 KN[/TD]

[TD]1400[/TD]

[TD]2440[/TD]

[TD]1600[/TD]

[TD]1030[/TD]

[TD]770

[/TD]

[TD]400KN[/TD]

[TD]200/300*[/TD]

[TD]188

[/TD]

[TD]100*

[/TD]

[TD]55*

[/TD]

[TD]30*KN

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

* depends on other factors than surface speed (both times not air limited, e.g. altitude)

(sandbox, magnetic containment fusion)

conclusion: Turbojet at least 2.5 times worse than ATTILA in 1.5.11

P.S. there was bug starting turbojet while reactor set in editor with Deuterium-Lithium mode (turbojet started only after switching mode to thermal power generation, and continue to work after switch back)

and i am not sure but ISP for turbojet (on high speed) looks lower than i tested days before.

Edited October 11, 2015 by okder

[FreeThinker]

I don't think your comparison is fair. For one, the ATTILA requires electric power which requires electric generator and radiators, which have mass. The Thermal Turbojet only need minimal radiator and no electric generator. Secondly the Turbojet is available early KSPI while high amount of power cannot be efficiently created until high end fusion tech, advanced electric generator tech, advanced radiator tech and electric engine tech. So yes, eventually the ATILLA get's more powerful, but not until you have done a lot of research.

Edited October 11, 2015 by FreeThinker

[okder]

I don't think your comparison is fair. For one, the ATTILA requires electric power which requires electric generator and radiators, which have mass. The Thermal Turbojet only need minimal radiator and no electric generator. Secondly the Turbojet is available early KSPI while high amount of power cannot be efficiently created until high end fusion tech, advanced electric generator tech, advanced radiator tech and electric engine tech. So yes, eventually the ATILLA get's more powerful, but not until you have done a lot of research.

ATTILA don't requires lot of research compared to full air jet branch, and generator still there because you need support fusion containment, i.e. difference only radiators,

but atmospheric radiators is cheap(especially may be bug in NFT mode, but still wings could be used as radiators),

and ATTILA is universal engine, so it should require some compressor/precooler (you can't just put airstream inside it, because its input primary for liquid fuel (in liquid state i mean) )

please read other answers ( http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/111159-BETA-1-0-4-KSP-Interstellar-Extended-1-5-10-%28last-updated-07-10-2015%29-Improved-Turbojet-Power?p=2236432&viewfull=1#post2236432 ) ,

they suggest remove ATTILA atmospheric mode at all, i suggest boost thermojet performance to ATTILA level (at ranges where it better, 0-300m/s, 800-2000m/s) (pure same energy, i.e. real ATTILA would be worse because of conversion)

and lower ISP when full thrust used (i.e. make it variable impulse (it already variate) ).

(of course if proper technology researched ).

i.e. it's not right that specialized atmospheric engine which is builtin into reactor works worse than universal electric engine after several energy conversations.

Edited October 11, 2015 by okder

[FreeThinker]

and ATTILA is universal engine, so it should require some compressor/precooler (you can't just put airstream inside it, because its input primary for liquid fuel (in liquid state i mean) )

It is assumed is uses advanced air compression technology which can rapidly compressing intake air and compress it to allow the ATILLA to use it as a propellant. It was originally available with advance EMS Systems (2250 science) but this appears too low, so I make it require "specialized Plasma Generation" (4000 science) which is the same tech that unlocks reaction-less propulsion

[TABLE=width: 800]

[TR]

[TD]engine/speed[/TD]

[TD]0 m/s[/TD]

[TD]300[/TD]

[TD]525[/TD]

[TD]800[/TD]

[TD]1000[/TD]

[TD]1200[/TD]

[TD]1600[/TD]

[TD]1800[/TD]

[TD]2000[/TD]

[TD]2100[/TD]

[TD]2150[/TD]

[TD]2175m/s[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]ATTILA[/TD]

[TD]1750[/TD]

[TD]1760[/TD]

[TD]1770[/TD]

[TD]1770[/TD]

[TD]1770[/TD]

[TD]1770[/TD]

[TD]1770*[/TD]

[TD]1770*[/TD]

[TD]1770*[/TD]

[TD]1400*[/TD]

[TD]1000*[/TD]

[TD]950*KN[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]turbojet[/TD]

[TD]700 KN[/TD]

[TD]1400[/TD]

[TD]2440[/TD]

[TD]1600[/TD]

[TD]1030[/TD]

[TD]770[/TD]

[TD]400KN[/TD]

[TD]200/300*[/TD]

[TD]188[/TD]

[TD]100*[/TD]

[TD]55*[/TD]

[TD]30*KN[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

* depends on other factors than surface speed (both times not air limited, e.g. altitude)

(sandbox, magnetic containment fusion)

conclusion: Turbojet at least 2.5 times worse than ATTILA in 1.5.11

P.S. there was bug starting turbojet while reactor set in editor with Deuterium-Lithium mode (turbojet started only after switching mode to thermal power generation, and continue to work after switch back)

and i am not sure but ISP for turbojet (on high speed) looks lower than i tested days before.

Alright, let's get to the bottom of this. Exactly how did you acquire these numbers? What does you test vessel consist of? Perhaps something isn't working as it is supposed to work. Atmosphere as a propellant in ATILLA is supposed to have an electric power efficiency of 0.5 * 0.87 * 100 = 43.5%

Edited October 11, 2015 by FreeThinker