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).
