The AI isn't making use of these yet, but it's not smart enough to do so
anyway.
Would benefit from an icon to differentiate it on the map.
I'm stretching the definition of "control point" quite a bit. We might
want to put a class above `ControlPoint` for `AirSpawnLocation` to
represent types of spawn locations that can't be captured and don't have
ground objectives.
Fixes https://github.com/Khopa/dcs_liberation/issues/274
Defining a campaign using a miz file instead of as JSON has a number of
advantages:
* Much easier for players to mod their campaigns.
* Easier to see the big picture of how objective locations will be laid
out, since every control point can be seen at once.
* No need to associate objective locations to control points explicitly;
the campaign generator can claim objectives for control points based
on distance.
* Easier to create an IADS that performs well.
* Non-random campaigns are easier to make.
The downside is duplication across campaigns, and a less structured data
format for complex objects. The former is annoying if we have to fix a
bug that appears in a dozen campaigns. It's less an annoyance for
needing to start from scratch since the easiest way to create a campaign
will be to copy the "full" campaign for the given theater and prune it.
So far I've implemented control points, base defenses, and front lines.
Still need to add support for non-base defense TGOs.
This currently doesn't do anything for the `radials` property of the
`ControlPoint` because I'm not sure what those are.
Like with deleting waypoints, these will degrade the flight plan to the
2.1 behavior.
Ascend/descend points aren't in use any more, so I removed those.
In almost every case this leaves us with a flight plan we can't reason
about, so it gets degraded to `CustomFlightPlan`. The exception is when
deleting a target point when there are other target points remaining.
This probably gets people using this feature back to what they want
though, which is essentially the 2.1 behavior.
Fixes https://github.com/Khopa/dcs_liberation/issues/393
This was also needed in other parts of the UI and is easier to implement
in the target class anyway.
Note that DEAD is now properly restricted to air defense targets.
Also added error boxes to the UI for when planning fails on an invalid
target.
Previously the only difference between these was the objective type:
TARCAP was for front lines and BARCAP was for everything else.
Now BARCAP is for friendly areas and TARCAP is for enemy areas. The
practical difference between the two is that a TARCAP package is like
the old front line CAP in that it will adjust its patrol time to match
the package if it can, and it will also arrive two minutes ahead of the
rest of the package to clear the area if needed.
This still leaves a bit to be desired, namely that selling aircraft
happens immediately but buying aircraft takes a turn. However, that's
how this behaved before, so this restores the 2.1 behavior. Worth
investigating further in the future.
* Move the UI code out of the plugin logic.
* Add types where needed.
* Move into game package.
* Improve error handling.
* Simplify settings behavior.
* Don't load disabled plugins.
* Remove knowledge of non-base plugins from game generation.
Fixes https://github.com/Khopa/dcs_liberation/issues/311
This removes both the double load that happens on startup and also
makes it possible to get the UI to create a new game if the existing
default.liberation is not compatible.
first pass briefing refactor
briefing fixes
briefing fixes
Stop briefing generate being called twice
Stop frontline advantage string being appended
when there are no units.
jinja template
always return enum instance in Strategy Selector
For some reason on DEFENSE, enum is appended to control point stance,
but on all other the enum.value is added instead.
I don't see any case where the value is used, but there are many
cases that the enum instance is evaluated against.
type issue
junja's not a thing
swap mapping with dict
jinja template
always return enum instance in Strategy Selector
For some reason on DEFENSE, enum is appended to control point stance,
but on all other the enum.value is added instead.
I don't see any case where the value is used, but there are many
cases that the enum instance is evaluated against.
type issue
Update build.yml
junja's not a thing
swap mapping with dict
Restore build job
Previously we were trying to make every potential flight plan look
just like a strike mission's flight plan. This led to a lot of special
case behavior in several places that was causing us to misplan TOTs.
I've reorganized this such that there's now an explicit `FlightPlan`
class, and any specialized behavior is handled by the subclasses.
I've also taken the opportunity to alter the behavior of CAS and
front-line CAP missions. These no longer involve the usual formation
waypoints. Instead the CAP will aim to be on station at the time that
the CAS mission reaches its ingress point, and leave at its egress
time. Both flights fly directly to the point with a start time
configured for a rendezvous.
It might be worth adding hold points back to every flight plan just to
ensure that non-formation flights don't end up with a very low speed
enroute to the target if they perform ground ops quicker than
expected.
We were only getting BARCAP results right in BARCAP packages. This
fixes calculations of TOTs and start times for BARCAPs in strike
packages.
The probably needs some refactoring. BARCAP is just the symptomatic
example at the moment, but the real problem is that different mission
profiles exist and we currently only handle one. Making profiles
explicit in mission planning will clean this up, will be needed for
other future mission types, and makes it easier for us to alter
behavior for waypoint and timing decisions based on the aircraft or
mission type.
Conditional in comprehension appears to be intended to exclude
dunders, but was also excluding many TER weapons from Weapon class args
beginning with '_'
