Inconsistent vanilla exclusion zones

[BC46]

Looking at various Freelancer system .ini files, it is apparent that there are a lot of inconsistencies regarding exclusion zones. The exclusion zones for trade lanes in New Berlin for example seem to be significantly smaller than in other systems. In my opinion, these should have a width of at least 800.

When a base in an asteroid field has an exclusion zone, it's often not perfectly centered. It looks as if the original developers had a drag and drop GUI tool and didn't perfectly center everything.

We should consider fixing these issues to make everything more consistent.

[erikroe]

I had fixed that same thing up in FLSR and can tell that 800 wide and 1200 high TLRs are the magic match that also causes no more asteroids jumping into the lane itself. In an approach of reworking every asteroid file I also have crossed many more exclusions that were odd. Some I already set up as PRs here. Also many exclusions are not written into the asteroid files and sometimes just coincidentally matching with empty cubes of the asteroid fields themselves. Also they are quite inconsistent about the size of exclusion zones very often. At times I think it is related to who made them/at which stage in the game they were added. Also there are some exclusion zones that are just nonsense, see https://github.com/BC46/freelancer-hd-edition/issues/187 or the Exclusions for Colorado parallel to Pueblo-NY-TLR which one may think are for the story – but one never goes through those?

[FireFlyEx]

.

[FireFlyEx]

Bretonia: 547, 547; 850, 850; 931, 931; 1598, 1598 Border Worlds (1-5): 400, 400; 520, 520; 800, 800; 1000, 1200 Border Worlds (6-10): 400, 400; 500, 200; 500, 500; 600, 200; 800, 1200; 1598, 1598 Independent Worlds: 520, 520; 600, 1100; 750, 750; 900, 1100 Kusari: 500, 500; 500, 629; 1500, 2000 Liberty: 839, 839; 931, 931; 850, 850; 1100, 1100; 1598, 1598 Rheinland: 520, 520

These are pretty much all of the different sizes. We can make them all the same but which size?

[BC46]

To minimize the amount of sizes that have to be updated, I'd suggest setting a minimum amount (e.g. 700 or 800) and only increase the size of an exclusion zone if it's less than that minimum.

[FireFlyEx]

What if we say... in major house systems we go with 1600, 1600 for major tradelanes and 800, 1200 for minors (lane to badlands, for example); and in the other systems we go with 800, 1200 for all?

[erikroe]

As I said before, the size of 800,1200 is very much well suited for all of the TLRs without looking odd with asteroids intersecting anymore. Any bigger size is unnecessary. Smaller sizes may however make asteroids cross the path again (e.g. Cortez system's eastern asteroid field is a prime example).

[FireFlyEx]

Many Liberty lanes are larger, though.

[FireFlyEx]

As I said before, the size of 800,1200 is very much well suited for all of the TLRs without looking odd with asteroids intersecting anymore. Any bigger size is unnecessary. Smaller sizes may however make asteroids cross the path again (e.g. Cortez system's eastern asteroid field is a prime example).

The problem with the tradelanes in Cortez is that the TLRs are not actually placed in line with their rotation, which means that the lane is correct but the TLRs are out of position, so asteroids spawn where they shouldn't. This can be fixed by changing the rotation of the lanes to -62.5 and 64.5 respectively.

After testing a bunch of sizes I would actually suggest 800, 1400.