This is an attempt to remove a lot of our supposedly unnecessary error
handling. Every aircraft should have a price, a description, a name,
etc; and none of those should require carrying around the faction's
country as context.
This moves all the data for aircraft into yaml files (only one converted
here as an example). Most of the "extended unit info" isn't actually
being read yet.
To replace the renaming of units based on the county, we instead
generate multiple types of each unit when necessary. The CF-18 is just
as much a first-class type as the F/A-18 is.
This doesn't work in its current state because it does break all the
existing names for aircraft that are used in the faction and squadron
files, and we no longer let those errors go as a warning. It will be an
annoying one time switch, but it allows us to define the names that get
used in these files instead of being sensitive to changes as they happen
in pydcs, and allows faction designers to specifically choose, for
example, the Su-22 instead of the Su-17.
One thing not handled by this is aircraft task capability. This is
because the lists in ai_flight_planner_db.py are a priority list, and to
move it out to a yaml file we'd need to assign a weight to it that would
be used to stack rank each aircraft. That's doable, but it makes it much
more difficult to see the ordering of aircraft at a glance, and much
more annoying to move aircraft around in the priority list. I don't
think this is worth doing, and the priority lists will remain in their
own separate lists.
This includes the converted I used to convert all the old unit info and
factions to the new format. This doesn't need to live long, but we may
want to reuse it in the future so we want it in the version history.
This Pull Request lets users plan Tanker flights.
Features:
- Introduction of `Refueling` flight type.
- Tankers can be purchased at airbases and carriers.
- Tankers get planned by AI.
- Tankers are planned from airbases and at aircraft carriers.
- Tankers aim to be at high, fast, and 70 miles from the nearest threat.
(A10s won't be able to tank)
- Tankers racetrack orbit for one hour.
- Optional Tickbox to enable legacy tankers.
- S-3B Tanker added to factions.
- KC-130 MPRS added to factions.
- Kneeboard shows planned tankers, their tacans, and radios.
Limitations:
- AI doesn't know whether to plan probe and drogue or boom refueling
tankers.
- User can't choose tanker speed. Heavily loaded aircraft may have
trouble.
- User can't choose tanker altitude. A-10s will not make it to high
altitude.
Problems:
- Tanker callsigns do not increment, see attached image. (Investigated:
Need to use `FlyingType.callsign_dict`, instead of just
`FlyingType.callsign`. This seems like it might be significant work
to do.).
- Having a flight of two or more tankers only spawns one tanker.
- Let me know if you have a solution, or feel free to commit one.
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/74509817/120909602-d7bc3680-c633-11eb-80d7-eccd4e095770.png
Missions with very large numbers of packages and short mission windows
would raise an exception here because we couldn't schedule more
frequently than once a minute. Switch to using seconds instead of
minutes to avoid that problem. If there are more packages than there are
seconds in the mission the game is broken for other reasons.
Fixes https://github.com/dcs-liberation/dcs_liberation/issues/1154
The usual symptom here was the game breaking when a carrier is
destroyed. The carrier would no longer be operational but missions would
be assigned there that could not generate flight plans.
Target the air defenses whose *threat ranges* come closest to friendly
bases rather than the closest sites themselves. In other words, the
SA-10 that is 5 miles behind the SA-6 will now be the priority.
This also treats EWRs a bit differently. If they are not protected by a
SAM their detection range will be used for determining their "threat"
range. Otherwise a heuristic is used to determine whether or not they
can be safely attacked without encroaching on the covering SAM.
We shouldn't consider the non-escorted parts of the flight path when
checking for threats to determine if escorts should be used or not,
since escorts can't help in those areas anyway. This was causing escorts
to be overly requested since the bullseye is now a part of the
"flight plan", but could have also triggered for divert waypoints, or
for aircraft taking off in a retreat from a threatened location.
We don't need to include a SEAD flight in missions against EWRs or SAMs
that no longer have a radar.
Also plan DEAD missions against air defenses that have no radars.
Previously we would never finish killing launcher only sites (which
cannot defend any more, but are cheaper to return to working order than
a fully destroyed site) nor would we plan DEAD against IR SAMs or AAA.
Everyone seems to do pretty okay generally, with the exception of
estimating ground ops time, which I've also increased (and is a
non-issue for runway/air start defaults).
We were setting up all the correct *target* waypoints but the AI doesn't
use the target waypoints; they use the targets property of the ingress
waypoint. This meant that the flight plan looked correct in the UI and
was correct for players but the tasks were set up incorrectly for the AI
because building TGOs are aggravatingly multiple TGOs with the same name
in the implementation.
Mission targets now enumerate their own strike targets so that this
mistake is harder to make in the future.
This won't be perfect, the AI is still not able to parallelize tasks and
since buildings aren't groups they can only attack one structure at a
time, but they'll now at least switch to the next target after hitting
the first one.
As a bonus, stop bombing the dead buildings.
Fixes https://github.com/dcs-liberation/dcs_liberation/issues/235
Fixes https://github.com/dcs-liberation/dcs_liberation/issues/244
