It wouldn't work. Period. Among other things, the star positions depicted are only 2D and are based as much or more on jump lines as/than the stellar positions themselves. Many of the star systems aren't referred to by their astronomic name, if any.
More directly, the star positions are flat-out wrong. Vega and Centaurus (Alpha and Proxima Centauri, particularly) are not in the same part of the sky (very different ones, in fact; Vega (part of the constellation Lyra) was the pole star ~12k years ago and will be ~12k years from now, while the constellation Centuarus which includes Alpha and Proxima Centuari are in the southern hemisphere). Sirius is likewise not particularly close to Alpha Centauri in the sky, nor is it especially close to Vega. These systems are depicted as being in approximately the same direction from Sol on the official maps, however.
Zeta Orionis, a star in the constellation Orion, is almost directly opposite Sirius on the maps but Orion and Canis Major are, at most, only 30-45 degrees apart in the sky. It's also way
too close to Sol, unless the jump lines in that area are really, really screwy. Vega is only about 25 ly from Earth but is in an entirely different sector
while Zeta Orionis, 800 ly distant, is relatively nearby and reached via a jump to Barnard's Star and then through another nearby system. Barnard's Star is also about a third of the way across the sky from Orion but is maybe 20 degrees off (if that much) from Zeta Orionis on the Wing Commander map.
Another problem with AstroSynthesis is the fact that we don't have the vertical positioning of stars. I could keep going, but I think the point has been made. Wing Commander's map bears about as much relation to the real positions of objects in the sky as a pizza (actually, some pizzas may be more accurate due to random chance). The map of Wing Commander has to be based on the jump lines, not the actual star positions, if you're going to try rationalizing it in real-world astronomy.
EDIT: Sorry if that came off as harsh. I tend to be very direct and aggressive in attacking theories and arguments being made intellectually. Partially it's my personality and partially inclination by academic training (historians, at least at my school, are trained to think in terms of correlating evidence and logical relations, meaning that analysis requires you to deconstruct an argument... or demolish it, in the view of some profs). In any case, that's just how I discuss things, and I also tend to be somewhat blunt and direct at times.
What it is not
is an indication of me thinking you're an idiot. The idea you raise is a very neat one, in fact, and on the surface it seems plausible, but as I pointed out, it's just not workable on a practical level. Part of the reason I knew that is I've considered it before, so I've already had
that particular rude awakening.