* Rename pydcs_extensions/f4/__init__.py (from pydcs_extensions/f4b/__init__.py)
Rename pydcs_extensions/f4/f4b.py (from pydcs_extensions/f4b/f4b.py)
* Rename pydcs_extensions/f4/f4.py (from pydcs_extensions/f4/f4b.py)
* Support for the updated F-4B/C mod
Updated the F4.py pydcs extension to match the updated F-4B/C mod and
reworked the standard payloads to add "clean" to new F-4B pylons 11 and
12.
This includes a workaround to allow Liberation to use the new VSN F-4B
weapons with combined 2x Aim-9js on pylons 3 and 9 underslung with bombs
on ters on new pylons 11 and 12. In mission editor the combined weapons
are selected in pylons 3 and 9 and their under-slung counterparts are
forced onto 11 and 12 using "required" arguments in the mod's lua. All
other pylon 3 and 9 weapons use "required clean" arguments. Liberation
doesn't have a way to force these linkages onto pylons 11 and 12 and
without them, even without clean, no weapons will load on 3 and 9 or 11
and 12.
The workaround for normal weapons on the F-4B is to set the standard
load-outs to "clean" on pylons 11 and 12. This allows all normal weapons
to work on pylons 3 and 9 so long as pylons 11 and 12 are left as Clean.
It also allows Clean into the Liberation dropdown so it can be selected
later if necessary.
The workaround for the 4 new weapons that combines pylons 3 with 11 and
9 with 12 is that the user has to use the matching pair on each set of
pylons. For example - if F4B_LAU105_AIM9J_2_BRU42A_MK82_3 is selected
for pylon 3, BRU 42A MK823 LAU105 AIM9J2 must be selected for pylon 11.
Failure to do this correctly doesn't crash liberation or DCS, the result
will just be either no weapons at all on either pylon or the underslung
weapons on 11 and 12 floating without a pylon attaching it to the plane.
When updating f4.py in the future, note that running the pydcs database
export doesn't pull any data for Pylons 11 and 12. Those matching
weapons / classes have to be manually defined in those pylons for the
F-4B. This is noted in f4.py.
* F-4 mod support update to 2.8.7.201
* Updated QGeneratorSettings.py and the changelog.
* Updated F-4B and F-4C loadouts.
* Added the Phantom to some additional factions.
* Changelog updated: Updated support for F-4B/C Phantom mod to 2.8.7.204
The pydcs export for the latest patch was identical, which means it's also supported.
* Migrator change for renamed F-4B/C folder
---------
Co-authored-by: Nosajthedevil <78634843+Nosajthedevil@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Raffson <Raffson@users.noreply.github.com>
* Added F/A-18E/F Super Hornet AI Tanker mod support (Chiller Juice Studios SuperBug Tanker AI version 1.1).
* Updated F/A-18E/F Super Hornet AI Tanker mod support (Chiller Juice Studios SuperBug Tanker AI) to version 1.2.
* F/A-18E/F Super Hornet AI Tanker (version 1.2) support merged to Retribution.
* Updated the pydcs extension to version 1.4.
This doesn't need to be a part of FlightPlan, and it's easier to test if
it isn't. Move it out and add the tests.
It's pretty misleading to allow this in the core of the flight plan code
anything. This is an extremely unreliable estimate for most aircraft so
it should be more clearly just for briefing purposes.
1000km isn't large enough in the case where there's an off-map spawn
that's a long way from the target, but still in range for aircraft like
the B-1. Double it, which for now is enough to fix the one pathological
case we know.
Fixes https://github.com/dcs-liberation/dcs_liberation/issues/3156.
There's an ugly special case in flight simulation to handle hold points
because we don't differentiate between the total time between two
waypoints (which can include delays from actions like holding) and
travel time. Split those up and remove the special case.
Putting the ingress point directly on one end of the FLOT means that AI
flights won't start searching and engaging targets until they reach that
point. If the front line has advanced toward the flight's departure
airfield, it might overfly targets on its way to the IP.
Instead, place an IP for CAS the same way we place any other IP. The AI
will fly to that and start searching from there.
This also:
* Removes the midpoint waypoint, since it didn't serve any real purpose
* Names the FLOT boundary waypoints for what they actually are
Fixes https://github.com/dcs-liberation/dcs_liberation/issues/2231.
This property affects safe compat because the ID is what gets preserved
in the save, but it's unfortunately also used as the display name, which
means changing the display name breaks save compat. It also prevents us
from changing display names without breaking faction definitions.
This is the first step in fixing that. The next is adding a separate
display_name property that can be updated without breaking either of
those.
This fuzz test generates random inputs for waypoint solvers to check if
they can find a solution. If they can't, the debug info for the solver
is dumped to the testcases directory. Another test loads those test
cases, creates a solver from them, and checks that a solution is found.
Obviously it won't be immediately, but it's a starting point for fixing
the bug and serves as a regression test afterward.
This is a replacement for the existing "zone geometry" classes that are
currently used for choosing locations for IP, hold, and join points.
The older approach required the author to define the methods for
choosing locations at a rather low level using shapely APIs to merge or
mask geometries. Debug UIs had to be defined manually which was a great
deal of work. Worse, those debug UIs were only useable for *successful*
waypoint placement. If there was a bug in the solver (which was pretty
much unavoidable during development or tuning), it wasn't possible to
use the debug UI.
This new system adds a (very simple) geometric constraint solver to
allow the author to describe the requirements for a waypoint at a high
level. Each waypoint type will define a waypoint solver that defines one
or more waypoint strategies which will be tried in order. For example,
the IP solver might have the following strategies:
1. Safe IP
2. Threat tolerant IP
3. Unsafe IP
4. Safe backtracking IP
5. Unsafe backtracking IP
We prefer those in the order defined, but the preferred strategies won't
always have a valid solution. When that happens, the next one is tried.
The strategies define the constraints for the waypoint location. For
example, the safe IP strategy could be defined as (in pseudo code):
* At least 5 NM away from the departure airfield
* Not farther from the departure airfield than the target is
* Within 10 NM and 45 NM of the target (doctrine dependent)
* Safe
* Within the permissible region, select the point nearest the departure
airfield
When a solver fails to find a solution using any strategy, debug
information is automatically written in a GeoJSON format which can be
viewed on geojson.io.
Fixes https://github.com/dcs-liberation/dcs_liberation/issues/3085.
Includes an Argentina 1982 faction for testing purposes, although it's
sparse because of a lack of assets in DCS.
Note that the carrier is mispelled as the Vienticinco in the game.
Includes prerequisite pydcs update.
Fixes https://github.com/dcs-liberation/dcs_liberation/issues/3123.
yaml to json
