This PR addresses #3066 by restricting the list of control points in the
new unit transfer dialog to control points reachable from the origin.
This change centralizes the logic for reachable nodes to the
TransitNetworkBuilder class.
This PR was tested by:
1. Loading save from #3066
2. Using cheat menu to destroy runway at Wadi al Jandali
3. Purchasing units at any of the other control points
4. Pass the turn to allow the purchase to complete
5. Initiating a unit transfer from the other control point and
confirming that Wadi al Jandali does not show up in the list
Steps 2-4 are needed as no ground units show up at Melez when loading
the save directly from the latest dev build.
Fixes https://github.com/dcs-liberation/dcs_liberation/issues/3066.
It sounds like PySide2 will not be moving to Python 3.11, so we're stuck
on 3.10 without this. Upgrading to a newer Qt also fixes some high DPI
bugs (the file browser dialog for save/load is no longer tiny on 4k).
https://github.com/pyinstaller/pyinstaller/issues/5414 previously
blocked this, but the bug appears to be fixed now.
- Add the new airassault mission type and special flightplans for it
- Add the mission type to airbase and FOB
- Add Layout for the UH-1H
- Add mission type to capable squadrons
- Allow the auto planner to task air assault missions when preconditions are met
- Improve Airlift mission type and improve the flightplan (Stopover and Helo landing)
- Allow Slingload and spawnable crates for airlift
- Rework airsupport to a general missiondata class
- Added Carrier Information to mission data
- Allow to define CTLD specific capabilities in the unit yaml
- Allow inflight preload and fixed wing support for air assault
This allows unique identification across saves. The front-end needs to
be able to differentiate the first carrier in game A and the first
carrier in game B, but because carriers (and other non-airfield CPs) are
assigned IDs sequentially, collisions were to be expected. The front-end
can't tell the difference between a reloaded game and a new turn, so we
need to ensure different IDs across games.
This is a handy cleanup anyway, since callers constructing CPs no longer
need to manually track the CP ID counter.
Fixes https://github.com/dcs-liberation/dcs_liberation/issues/2078.
The UI needs to be able to identify these to the server and vice versa,
so they'll need IDs that don't change. Rather than constructing an ID
based on the control points names, make them an owned part of the
control point. The constructed ID would be fine, but a UUID will make
them more suitable for the database, and this was always fairly gross
anyway.
Some follow up work if anyone is interested: a bunch of the data that's
computed in the various properties can now probably be computed *once*
and persisted to the FrontLine type.
This appears to be incompatible with pyinstaller. I get the following
when trying to run the executable generated with pyside6:
```
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "qt_ui\main.py", line 29, in <module>
File "PyInstaller\loader\pyimod03_importers.py", line 476, in exec_module
File "qt_ui\windows\QLiberationWindow.py", line 28, in <module>
File "PyInstaller\loader\pyimod03_importers.py", line 476, in exec_module
File "qt_ui\widgets\map\QLiberationMap.py", line 11, in <module>
ImportError: could not import module 'PySide6.QtPrintSupport'
```
This makes long squadron names more likely to fit. I also added a
horizontal scroll bar for the cases when this still isn't enough space
and made the vertical scroll bar only appear when necessary. Typically
aircraft purchase menus are neither wide enough for long enough to need
either scroll bar.
Fixes https://github.com/dcs-liberation/dcs_liberation/issues/1592
This is needed fairly often, and we have a lot of Game being passed
around to ControlPoint methods specifically to support this. Just store
the owning Coalition directly in the ControlPoint to clean up. I haven't
cleaned up *every* API here, but did that aircraft allocations as an
example.
when a cp capture happens and the next cp has pending unit deliveries then they will be redeployed to the newly captured cp. The redeploy was drecreasing the num of pending unit deliveries for the old cp but was not removing them completly from the dict when all were removed
Much of the UI was using the old budget which wasn't removed from Game
like it should have been when Coaltion was introduced. The UI displayed
(and in some cases pulled from) the starting budget rather than the real
budget.
* Fixes#1310 by only refunding GUs if no faction CP has an attached factory. Previously it would refund all units at the CP, including aircraft.
Also changes the CP CAPTURE cheat to work at any CP regardless of adjacency to frontline or BLUEFOR/OPFOR state.
* Fixing typing issues, changint all Dict[] types to dict[]
* Updating changelog
The new class PurchaseGroup coming in with commit 9bb986c was not
initiallized correctly.
This causes the bug that the update function is not working when you
for example open the AircraftRecruitmentMenu press "+" or "-", close
the dialog and then open ArmorRecruitmentMenu. If you then want to buy
or sell the update function will raise an error "Internal C++ Object
Already Deleted".
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
The AI purchaser will aim to have a 50/50 ground/air investment mix.
This allows it to overspend on one category if significant losses were
taken the previous turn.
The total purchase amount is still limited, so if the bases are full
when only 10% of the investment is in ground units, the full budget for
the turn will still go to air.
