Would you please tell me that is the "turret AI" bug fixed ?

http://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?t=24922

OMG you are awesome, thank you!

Buying TIE right now!!!

First of all: THANK YOU SO, SO MUCH! YES YES YES!

Anyway, where do I find the new versions? Can't seem to find those in my library. :P
Edit: https://www.gog.com/account/refresh Had to refresh my account, both versions have been added to my account. :)

Thanks so much gog, really happy this got added :)

Nope, still there. But it can be fixed by using normal core instead of dynamic. So far I didn't notice any adverse effects.

Thank you so very, very much!

AMAZING job to both GOG and Disney!

Unfortunately, I don't see the 1994 version of X-wing Special Edition in my library, only the 1993 and 1998 versions- any help?

Edit: https://www.gog.com/account/refresh did the trick, I wonder why manually refreshing in the browser didn't update the library...

THANK YOU!

THANKS for this, I was starting to worry that I couldn't find the best version of these games. I hacked up the Win95 version a little with the simulated restored MIDI soundrack ("TIE Fighter Reconstructed,") but this is the real thing!

The framerate will suffer seriously when using normal core.

Would GOG actually be able to fix the AI bug without the source code? Because they don't have that. (Just fyi, I didn't check out the VOGONS link.)

The best compromise is to use dynamic core and fixed cycles count (around 60000).

I would very much like confirmation about what, if any, adverse effects exist when running normal core. This setting is not mentioned on the original vogons thread, only the cycles setting. If normal core fixes the issue with a manageable framerate hit, then it will likely be my preferred solution.

Do the cycles no longer matter when running in normal core? Are they only used with dynamic core?

They matter no matter ☺ what core you use. The difference is that normal core is slower (the program is interpreted instruction by instruction. This approach is a lot more CPU demanding than dynamic core but allows for a more fine-grained time emulation) while dynamic core is faster (The program instructions are, in blocks, translated to host processor instructions that execute directly. In the most cases this approach is more efficent than interpretation, except for programs that employ massive self-modifying code). [info from DOSBox.conf manual]