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.
When a new flight is added to a package, if the TOT is early enough the
new flight might have a startup time in the past. Clamp the TOT when
adding new flights to the package to avoid this.
https://github.com/dcs-liberation/dcs_liberation/issues/1680
This makes the start time in WaitingForStart dynamic, which is more
expensive but probably still cheap enough.
It also checks that the new TOT will not result in a start time in the
past when the player changes the TOT.
https://github.com/dcs-liberation/dcs_liberation/issues/1680
mypy struggles to prove this cast correct when there are two or'd
isinstance checks where both types coincidentally have properties of the
same name (but no defined protocol making that explicit). I'm not really
sure why mypy is happy with this in its current state, but it isn't
after a change I'm making.
All our isinstance use is a bit of an anti-pattern anyway, so extract a
method that exposes the data we care about.
The start/end times for tankers aren't actually used, so this could be
simplified even more, but that data _should_ be used.
There doesn't appear to be any reason for us to be poking at
implementation details here aside from changing the name from "unit" to
"building" for that case. Just iterate over the known strike targets.
Making this change uncovered some latent type errors.
Fixes https://github.com/dcs-liberation/dcs_liberation/issues/2564.
Troops must be dropped inside this zone or they won't attack the target.
The zone needs to be drawn in the map so players don't break the flight
plan by accidentally moving the drop waypoint outside the DZ.
I've move the API for doing this out of `PatrollingFlightPlan` in favor
of a mixin so this is no longer presented as `engagement_distance` by
the flight plan. I don't love that it's still the `commit-boundary`
endpoint, but it's fine for now.
I don't know why mypy wasn't able to catch this. pycharm is also
struggling to understand this class.
The timing for these doesn't work. Sweep RTBs at the same time the
package reaches its TOT. The tanker won't be on station until 1m30s
before the package reaches the refueling point.
This isn't actually the data that callers usually want. Most of the
callers just want the bounds. The heading and length are trivially
computed from that. Add a class to contain the result so it's easier to
refactor.
The next step in splitting up the layout and scheduling phases. This
facilitates splitting flights into two classes where one has a full
flight plan, but one used in the earlier phases of planning has only a
layout. Layout-only flights won't need TOTs, which will make them much
easier to work with once we've migrated TOTs from timedeltas to
datetimes.
Layout-only flights of course aren't actually usable, but it lets us
avoid dealing with the current sim time until we're certain the Flight
will even survive planning.
I'm not actually sure if we'll be able to split the two phases any more,
but this ends up being a nice cleanup anyway.
We can always estimate a startup time now. Remove the nullability from
the result, cleanup the callsites, and eliminate
TotEstimator.mission_start_time since it no longer does anything useful.
Flights without a meaningful TOT make the code around startup time (and
other scheduling behaviors) unnecessarily complicated because they have
to handle unpredictable flight plans. We can simplify this by requiring
that all flight plans have a waypoint associated with their TOT. For
custom flight plans, we can just fall back to the takeoff waypoint. For
RTB flight plans (which are only synthetic flight plans injected for
aborted flights), we can use the abort point.
This also means that all flight plans now have, at the very least, a
departure waypoint. Deleting this waypoint is invalid even for custom
flights, so that's no a problem.
For now this is just a callsite cleanup. Later, this will make it easier
to separate unscheduled and scheduled flights into different classes
without complicating the layout/scheduling.
