Use FreshLiveDataPacketFlatbuffer instead of UpdateLiveDataPacket.

[Quetzal2]

Use the new FreshLiveDataPacketFlatbuffer from RLBot/RLBot@9407646 (new option: RLBot/RLBot@8086f41) instead of UpdateLiveDataPacket.

An update example (Java) can be found here : RLBot/RLBot@5701357

[Quetzal2]

(adding the base dll code. Will wait for the .so to be updated to complete the change.)

dll.rs, ffi.rs, interface.rs, packeteer.rs and files using the function (examples, …):

• Flatbuffer version
• Non-flatbuffer version

Documentation:

• Document FreshLiveDataPacketFlatbuffer
• Update other documentations accordingly
  Mark update_live_data_packet as deprecated? (is still usefull in certain cases)

Cleanup:
Remove UpdateLiveDataPacket? (still usefull in certain cases and for backwards compatibility reasons)

• Bump version (⇒ Update CHANGELOG.md)?
• Is there now some useless code to remove (waiting loops that wait for 18ms for example)?

[Quetzal2]

Topics:

• src/interface.rs should be asking for an ffi struct (as all the others do), or manage it by themselves (makes way more sense in this case)?
• src/interface.rs (if second option) u32 to c_int management.

[saintdev]

(adding the base dll code. Will wait for the .so to be updated to complete the change.)
dll.rs, ffi.rs, interface.rs, packeteer.rs and files using the function (examples, …):

* [x]  Flatbuffer version
* [ ]  Non-flatbuffer version

ffi.rs is generated by rust-bindgen, so whatever it generates from the updated header. Instructions here.

Documentation:

* [ ]  Document FreshLiveDataPacketFlatbuffer
* [ ]  Update other documentations accordingly
* [ ]  Mark `update_live_data_packet` as deprecated?

Yes, if it's depreciated upstream.

Cleanup:

* [ ]  Remove `UpdateLiveDataPacket`?

Only if it's been removed upstream.

* [ ]  Bump version (⇒ Update CHANGELOG.md)?

Yes.

[Quetzal2]

Ok. Thanks saintdev!
I'll take care of the ffi.rs generation.

[tarehart]

Binaries are available! RLBot/RLBot@0e40017

Also deployed to pypi.