I used the guide quite a lot to revese-engineers some parameters from the mission files like the time encondings I was posting a couple of weeks ago.

The guide isn't totally accurate on most things.
For example, when describing the Close Escort and Loose Escort AI orders, it gives distances of 1000 meters and 4000 meters respectively, while with some minimal empirical information proves those figures to be quite too small. (My tests offer values closer to 1300 and 6222 meters).
Most arrival delays are about 0 to 6 seconds to long in the guide.

Maybe it's an error derived from me using XWA models for the frigate, but in these models, there are only 8 hardpoints defined for weapons (4 pyramid-looking turbolasers, 4 rotating turret superlasers).
As you quote, the frigate supposedly has 12 lasers and 12 turbolasers. There are definitely not 24 hardpoints defined in these models.
Even if they reuse the same harpoint for lasers and turbolasers, that would be 12 hardpoints and not 8.
Also, I am not sure if there is any point on shooting normal (starfighter class) lasers instead of turbolasers.
They seem to travel at the same speed and deal the same damage. Turbolasers last way longer than lasers (9 seconds instead of 2.7).

I could think that perhaps the original game prioritized lasers over turbolasers when the target was close enough if only because of performance reasons. The sorter the lifespan of a projectile, the sooner it disappears and the fewer CPU resources wasted on stray shots that aren't hitting anyone.
I wonder, in that case, if in game terms, "turbolasers" means "just like lasers, but they can shoot 360 degrees", and "superlasers" means "like turbolarses but lasts 9 seconds instead of 2.7".
In that case, the frigate would shoot with superlasers at targets between 1.2 and 4 km, and with turbolasers at targets up to 1.2 km.

On a second thought, this is a remake of original X-Wing.
By using X-Wing Ship Editor 5.0 on the Collectors' CD-ROM edition, the program tells that the frigate has only 12 hardpoints total, of which the weapon type is just "Laser".
Regardless of what hardpoints appear on the X-W98, XvT, XWA, or XWAU OPT files, it seems the original X-Wing ignores all of that and just hardcodes the position and types of the weapons installed. :/
Somehow, the game changes them from lasers to turbolasers when it needs to.

Following advice from General_Trageton from the XWAU forums, I used the MXvTED program to inspect the weapon data in the executables of the later games in the series.
Instead of using XWA for this, I used XvT that I feel is much closer to X-Wing and TIE Fighter, though.

The references to Turbolaser and Superlaser are clearer there.
Unless I am totally mistaken, it seems that "turbolaser" is the internal term for referring to fixed guns single-cannon guns on capital ships. Meanwhile, "Superlaser" refers to twin laser turrets that usually rotate.
Beyond this, different speeds, lifetimes and, damage values are given for these weapons. But I am not sure that these values will be useful to us, since it is most likely that weapon values were at least slightly changed from TIE Fighter to XvT. And certainly they were massively changed between X-Wing and TIE Fighter.

I will pay closer attention, instead, to the values and description give in this TIE Fighter FAQ, where at the end of the Combat section, it describes the difference between gun and turret:

Turbo Laser Gun (G) Auto-targeting, does 5 points of damage
Turbo Laser Turret (T) Auto-targeting, does 5 points of damage, fires at double rate

So finally these are the infamous turbolaser and superlaser weapons. Both seem to be similar in TIE Fighter, other than the rate of fire of Superlasers being double of that of turbolasers.
I guess more lore friendly names for these weapons would be "single turbolaser turret" and "twin turbolaser turret" (since both can actuall shoot all around, both are kind of turrets, even when only the later actually shows up as a moving turret in the game).

In order to translate all of this into something that works in XWVM, I have programmed these hardpoints to allow for a ship component to serve as physical body for them. These components are configured by the ship creator by giving them a normal vector (normal as in trigonometry) and an arc of fire in degrees (having the normal vector as the center of the firing arc).

After that was done, I reconfigured or placeholder frigate model from the XWAU project to carry the assortment of weapons that it has on XvT:Balance of Power.
I attached the screenshot of how it looks in the editor.
You can see for each turret an icon with a straight line being the normal vector, and some arcs depicting the firing arc.

It would be interesting to see if the mission balance stays intact with TIE Fighter's values or if we'd need to change them to aproximate the original X-Wing ones.

That is definitely one of the optional settings I would like to add.
While it affects player skill (once you are use to a particular projectile speed, it's hard to aim if it changes to other value), I don't see how would it affect the AI or other balancing factor. The AI accounts for the weapon speed when aiming (at least turret guns do).
So you could have even a speed setting slider at run time and change it all the time, and the AI would not be affected.

Perhaps turbolasers and superlasers would be much harder to evade if they were faster? Currently, when the frigate is starting to shoot at you 4 km away from you you have plenty of time to evade those bright green dots that come your direction (up to 9 seconds).
It's worth a try.

Some screenshots after some lighting work made by MajorParts:

Oh. My. Goodness.

That looks utterly stunning.

Very nice work there folks!

This is amazing. My favorite one is the first one with the completely dark cockpit. :)

Nice! I'm really excited to try this out!

Re: projectile speed
While I played enough X-Wing when I was a kid to get really good at timing with the original speeds, since then I've spent so much time with X-Wing Alliance and other newer games that I imagine I'd have a harder time going back to the original values. Being able to choose between them (assuming it doesn't affect gameplay too much) sounds like a fantastic idea. Especially if you're able to choose for the Ions as well - that would make the weapon linking ability we were talking about far more useful.

here's another one :) ** these screens may not be representative of the final product ** :P

If this screenshot looks awesome and this isn't representative of the final product, then it will be even more awesome. :P

Btw you still have time to stop that Frigate. ;)

I think I should've died way before then :D

I started modeling the frigate last night...not got much to show of it though yet.

Good luck with the Frigate. I'm looking forward to see it. :)

Do you plan to stay true to the studio model or take some artistic license by including elements of the X-Wing series models as well (hangar, turrets, docking platform etc)?

In the XWAU forums, there is one poster that comments that he finds the message log and goal list screens "eyesores". I guess he means untasteful and unfitting.
What is the opinion of you people here about that?

Personally, I like having the screens, and agree with you that it is a much more efficient use of space, particularly with widescreen resolutions being the norm at this point. Also, having the information at a fixed location within the cockpit would be useful (I imagine) for VR players.

Having this information easily available is probably amongst the biggest gameplay conveniences that can be added to the original game.

Realistically, what would the alternatives be? Some potential solutions (and drawbacks) I can think of are:

- Have the message log and goal lists be displayed in separate full-screen interfaces that need to be toggled.
This is the TIE Fighter approach, and while appropriate for that game and that time, you have to ask if it is the best user experience. In both cases, the display then takes up the entire screen and pauses the game - you could argue it's not very 'simulation-appropriate' since time doesn't usually stop when you're reading something (although maybe my rambling posts make it feel that way ;-) )

- Message log and goals are displayed in a little animated pop-out screen (think Luke's targeting computer in A New Hope)
I can think of a couple of issues here - the display would need to have open/close animations, otherwise it would pop in instantaneously, which would surely be very distracting? Also, I don't imagine it would be very comfortable or practical in VR, putting a display up that close would surely make some people ill, with the sudden shift from normal vision to macro depth of field.

- Use a transparent, toggleable overlay
This is the XWA approach that we're familiar with... whether you like it or not is probably a matter of taste. It has the advantage of being very clear, and the disadvantage of (arguably) not being as immersive.

---
On a related topic, is there any chosen approach for the in-flight map? I would imagine that being able to toggle one of the screens (probably the message log) to the in-flight map interface would be pretty cool, but then again, I am a self-confessed fan of the screens.