Re-format of namespace, update lang version & SDK and improve US852 IFF models

[Adanlink]

Lang version to C# 12
SDK to .NET 8
Simplified namespace usage

Improvements to the US852 IFF models:

• IFFCommon -> Added tiki releated data and defined missing types and flags.
• BallUs8 -> Improved ball model with missing data separation
• CaddieUs8 -> Normalized with StatsStruct
• Character -> Made unknown those fields that didn't match the prior names (and had unknown usage) and changed RankS field (uint) to ClubSetScale (float)
• ClubSetUs8 -> Added missing final data related to Workshop and custom Pangya Images
• CourseUs8 -> Added missing data (Unknowns, Pars, MinScore and MaxScore), changed CourseFlag (byte) to Difficulty (b4 unknown, b4 difficultyStars) and put proper names to filenames.
• ItemUs8 -> Added (wasn't present in the lib)
• PartUs8 -> Added (wasn't present in the lib)

Part of the improvements in this models have been based on previous work done by Acrissio in its Japanese Season 8 Server Emulator.
The rest are discoveries found by my own work/investigation.

[pixeldesu]

I tested the new models, and they seem to work fine on my end! 👍

Marked two things I found while looking over things, just small typos.

But I have another thing that irks me a bit, and is up for discussion. You renamed the Models namespace to Model. And, according to the C# framework guidelines it says "CONSIDER using plural namespace names where appropriate."

Other than that, everything looks fine!

For other Pull Requests I'd please suggest limiting the scope to a single package, even with the namespace adjustments, reviewing this was kinda hard 😄

[Adanlink]

Marked two things I found while looking over things, just small typos.

Will fix them now in a moment 🤣

But I have another thing that irks me a bit, and is up for discussion. You renamed the Models namespace to Model. And, according to the C# framework guidelines it says "CONSIDER using plural namespace names where appropriate."

Sure!

For other Pull Requests I'd please suggest limiting the scope to a single package, even with the namespace adjustments, reviewing this was kinda hard 😄

Yes, you are right, I should have made a separate PR just for the adjustments, my fault. Thanks for reviewing it!