CAP List:
[+] Mig-21 #1372
[+] Su-34
[moved up] F-15C above the F-14 (probably contentious to some but IMO the AI never capitalizes on the AIM-54 range and the Eagle AI seems to do better in general)
[moved up] JF-17
[moved up] Gripen
[moved down] Su-33
[moved down] Su-27
[moved down] MiG-31
[moved down] MiG-25
[moved down] MiG-29G
[moved down] MiG-29A
* Downgraded MiGs and Sukhois that do not have Fox-3s due to this disadvantage. From personal experience, the 31s and 25s also won't use the longer range of their Fox-1s to warrant for a higher spot on the list.
CAS/BAI List:
[+] Su-33 #1367
[-] Su-24MR (dedicated recce platform, no AG munitions)
[moved up] Su-34
[moved down] Mig-19P
[moved down] UH-1
Strike List:
[-] Su-24MR (dedicated recce platform, no AG munitions)
[moved up] JF-17
[moved up] Harrier
Runway Attack List:
[+] Mirage 2000C
* Addresses #478, adding a heading class to represent headings and angles
Removed some unused code
* Fixing bad merge
* Formatting
* Fixing type issues and other merge resolution misses
It's rare with the current 5NM buffer around the origin, but if we use
the hold distance as the buffer like we maybe should it's possible for
the preferred join locations to fall entirely within the home zone. In
that case, fall back to a location within the max-turn-zone that's
outside the home zone and is nearest the IP.
This only takes effect for default loadouts. Custom loadouts set from
the UI will allow LGBs. In the default case there will not be buddy-lase
coordination so we should take iron bombs instead.
Also adds single/double Mk 83 and Mk 82 weapon data to accomodate this.
Test cases:
1. Target is not threatened.
The IP should be placed on a direct heading from the origin to the
target at the max ingress distance, or very near the origin airfield
if the airfield is closer to the target than the IP distance.
2. Unthreatened home zone, max IP between origin and target, safe
locations available for IP.
The IP should be placed in LAR at the closest point to home.
3. Unthreatened home zone, origin within LAR, safe locations available
for IP.
The IP should be placed near the origin airfield to prevent
backtracking more than needed.
4. Unthreatened home zone, origin entirely nearer the target than LAR,
safe locations available for IP.
The IP should be placed in LAR as close as possible to the origin.
5. Threatened home zone, safe locations available for IP.
The IP should be placed in LAR as close as possible to the origin.
6. No safe IP.
The IP should be placed in LAR at the point nearest the threat
boundary.
The only parts of the old weapon data that worked well (didn't commonly
result in empty pylons) did this implicitly, so make the grouping
explicit.
This also moves the data out of Python and into the resources, which
both makes the data moddable and isolates us from a huge amount of
effort and a save compat break whenever ED changes weapon names.
I didn't auto migrate the old data since the old groups were not
explict and there's no way to infer the grouping. Besides, since most of
the weapons were *not* grouped, the old data did more harm than good in
my experience. I've handled the AIM-120 and AIM-7 for now, but will get
at least all the fox 3 missiles before we ship.
This places the split point based on the best path from the IP to home,
rather than the best path from home to the target. The outcome is that
the planner might choose an alternate route out of a threatened area
based on the safest escape from the IP, which is where the aircraft
should be when it releases its weapons, rather than at the target.
That's of course not always perfect since the IP distance is not based
on the carried weapon, but it's a better choice when it matters more
(when carrying standoff weapons attacking a more dangerous target).
Try all the nav points between the origin and the target rather than
just the first non-threatened point. This prevents us from using the
fallback behavior for any target that's sufficiently far from the
package airfield.
This makes it so that the mission planning effects are applied only if
the package can be fulfilled. For example, breakthrough will be used
only if all the BAI missions were fulfilled, not if they will *attempt*
to be fulfilled.
This improves the AI behavior by choosing the stances non-randomly:
* Breakthrough will be used if the base is expected to be capturable and
the coalition outnumbers the enemy by 20%.
* Elimination will be used if the coalition has at least as many units
as the enemy.
* Defensive will be used if the coalition has at least half as many
units as the enemy.
* Retreat will be used if the coalition is significantly outnumbers.
This also exposes the option to the player.
An HTN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_task_network) is
similar to a decision tree, but it is able to reset to an earlier stage
if a subtask fails and tasks are able to account for the changes in
world state caused by earlier tasks.
Currently this just uses exactly the same strategy as before so we can
prove the system, but it should make it simpler to improve on task
planning.
This is as much as we can do until pydcs actually adds the py.typed
file. Once that's added there are a few ugly monkey patching corners
that will just need `# type: ignore` for now, but we can't pre-add those
since we have mypy warning us about superfluous ignore comments.
The loadout case actually could (and previously did) hide bugs from the
type checker, since mypy was smart enough to see that we were removing
None from the input it assumed that the member was non-optional, but
later modifications could cause null values, and since those came from
the UI mypy couldn't reason about this. This meant that mypy assumed the
type could not be optional and wouldn't check that case.
Aircraft that have no loadouts at all (such as the IL-78M) will have no
loadouts and thus no values in the dropdown menu. If the player toggles
the custom layout box we reset the flight's loadout to the selected
loadout, and with no loadouts in the combo box that is None, and
`Flight.loadout` isn't supposed to be optional.
Check for that case in the loadout selector and replace with an empty
loadout if that happens.
Fixes https://github.com/dcs-liberation/dcs_liberation/issues/1402
This doesn't currently interact very well with the auto purchase since
the procurer might by aircraft that don't have pilots available. That
should be fixed, but for the short term we should just default to not
enabling this new feature.
If these orders can't be fulfilled for the faction it will prevent the
faction from ordering any non-reserve aircraft since transports are
given priority after reserve missions, and they'll never be fulfillable.
As such, no non-reserve aircraft will ever be purchased for factions
without transport aircraft.
Factions without transport aircraft are screwed in other ways, but this
will fix their air planning for campaigns that aren't dependent on
airlift.
Mod selection is now done via checkbox in the new game wizard.
The MB-339 is being turned into a paid module, and the free mod no longer works, so it's been removed.
We were doignt his for escorts, but now that we quit planning as soon as
we find an unplannable mission (to save money for higher priority
missions), if we hit an early unplannable mission like BARCAP no other
missions wil be planned.
Maybe fixes https://github.com/dcs-liberation/dcs_liberation/issues/1228
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
