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.
Stop using "CAP". Use BARCAP or TARCAP instead.
TARCAP no longer allowed anywhere but front lines, since that's all we
have mission planning for right now. Later will add TARCAP and BARCAP
for all objective types with different timing profiles.
Part two of the fix for
https://github.com/Khopa/dcs_liberation/issues/210.
Reasonable ground speed depends a lot on altitude, so plumb that
information through to the speed estimator.
Also adds calculations for ground speed based on desired mach. I don't
know if DCS is using the same formulas, but we should at least be
pretty close.
We estimate the longest possible time from mission start to TOT for
all flights in a package and use that to set the TOT (plus any delay
used to stagger flights). This both cuts down on loiter time for
shorter flights and ensures that long flights will make it to the
target in time.
This is also used to compute the start time for the AI, so the
explicit delay option is no longer needed.
Also fixes the CAP racetracks so the AI actually stays on station.
Waypoint TOT assignment happens at mission generation time for the
sake of the UI. It's a bit messy since we have the late-initialized
field in FlightWaypoint, but on the other hand we don't have to reset
every extant waypoint whenever the player adjusts the mission's TOT.
If we want to clean this up a bit more, we could have two distinct
types for waypoints: one for the planning stage and one with the
resolved TOTs. We already do some thing like this with Flight vs
FlightData.
Future improvements:
* Estimate the group's ground speed so we don't need such wide margins
of error.
* Delay takeoff to cut loiter fuel cost.
* Plan mission TOT based on the aircraft in the package and their
travel times to the objective.
* Tune target area time prediction. Flights often don't need to travel
all the way to the target point, and probably won't be doing it
slowly, so the current planning causes a lot of extra time spent in
enemy territory.
* Per-flight TOT offsets from the package to allow a sweep to arrive
before the rest, etc.
Mission planning on a per-control point basis lacked the context it
needed to make good decisions, and the ability to make larger missions
that pulled aircraft from multiple airfields.
The per-CP planners have been replaced in favor of a global planner
per coalition. The planner generates a list of potential missions in
order of priority and then allocates aircraft to the proposed flights
until no missions remain.
Mission planning behavior has changed:
* CAP flights will now only be generated for airfields within a
predefined threat range of an enemy airfield.
* CAS, SEAD, and strike missions get escorts. Strike missions get a
SEAD flight.
* CAS, SEAD, and strike missions will not be planned unless
they have an escort available.
* Missions may originate from multiple airfields.
There's more to do:
* The range limitations imposed on the mission planner should take
aircraft range limitations into account.
* Air superiority aircraft like the F-15 should be preferred for CAP
over multi-role aircraft like the F/A-18 since otherwise we run the
risk of running out of ground attack capable aircraft even though
there are still unused aircraft.
* Mission priorities may need tuning.
* Target areas could be analyzed for potential threats, allowing
escort flights to be optional or omitted if there is no threat to
defend against. For example, late game a SEAD flight for a strike
mission probably is not necessary.
* SAM threat should be judged by how close the extent of the SAM's
range is to friendly locations, not the distance to the site itself.
An SA-10 30 nm away is more threatening than an SA-6 25 nm away.
* Much of the planning behavior should be factored out into the
coalition's doctrine.
But as-is this is an improvement over the existing behavior, so those
things can be follow ups.
The potential regression in behavior here is that we're no longer
planning multiple cycles of missions. Each objective will get one CAP.
I think this fits better with the turn cycle of the game, as a CAP
flight should be able to remain on station for the duration of the
turn (especially with refueling).
Note that this does break save compatibility as the old planner was a
part of the game object, and since that class is now gone it can't be
unpickled.
In the mission editor, using a VHF frequency for a Player or
Client A-10C results in an error. Changed the radio definitions
to use AN/ARC-164 for intraflight comms.
Adds the following:
* AJS37
* AV-8B
* JF-17
This does move the preset channel allocation logic into its own class,
since we need to customize that behavior for the AJS37 since it has a
rather unique preset channel layout (see the comments in
`ViggenRadioChannelAllocator` for details).
The first waypoint is automatically added by pydcs, so it's not
actually in our waypoint list from the flight planner. Import is from
the group so it shows up in the kneeboard.
Not every aircraft has a pydcs radio index, so we can't use that to
index into a list. Any mission with an A-10C crashes, since it would
try to use `None - 1` to index into the list of radios to find the
intra-flight radio.
Also fix the radio ranges for the newly added radios. The current
implementation can't model gaps, so extending the radio ranges across
those gaps means that we might allocate channels that aren't tunable
by those radios. Additionally, the end frequency is exclusive rather
than inclusive, so fix the ranges to include that last tunable
frequency.
I've been wrongly importing these from `pydcs.dcs` instead of just
`dcs`, because that was what PyCharm thought they were. These will all
be broken when we get back to using a real pydcs instead of relying on
its directory being in our tree.
This page in the wiki should be updated:
https://github.com/Khopa/dcs_liberation/wiki/Developer's-Guide
Instead of recommending that `PYTHONPATH` be updated in the run
configuration, it should instead recommend that Settings -> Project:
dcs_liberation -> Project Structure be set to exclude the pydcs
directory from the dcs_liberation content root, and add the pydcs
directory as a *separate* content root.
Alternatively, we could recommend that configure a virtualenv (good
advice anyway, and pycharm knows how to set them up) that have people
run `pip install -e pydcs`.
I think even easier would be switching from the virtualenv-style
requirements.txt to pipenv, which can actually encode the `-e` style
pip install into its equivalent of requirements.txt.
