It's good that you mention this. You see, the only two ways that you would get a pattern like this is if the Earth rotated in place like a rotisserie (no orbit), or if the stars orbit the Earth.
Wrong again.
The effect of the orbit will depend upon the size of it.
The fact you accept Earth rotating in place can cause it means you accept that not being directly at the centre can cause an insignificant variation to the pattern.
And guess what else can? A small displacement due to the orbit.
By contrast, what RE claims is that Earth orbits the sun while tilting and wobbling, while both of them spiral around the Milky Way galaxy.
How many times are you planning on repeating this same dishonest BS?
Again, it isn't that it is "tilting". It is that it is tilted, that the axis of rotation is not aligned with the orbit.
That is not motion, that is a statement about 2 parts of its motion.
The effect of this tilt is that the SUN appears to change the angle of elevation at solar noon and a few similar things.
It does nothing to the other stars.
The effect on the stars is the precision of that, which takes an incredibly long time and will not be visible in a time-lapse.
The effect of the orbit is a tiny displacement, which again is entirely insignificant unless you have very precise tools to measure it.
Likewise, the motion of the solar system through the milky way will produce a tiny difference.
So no, the RE explains it just fine.
Do you know what doesn't explain it?
The stars circling in a disc or dome overhead a flat stationary Earth.
There is no way for such stars to drop below the equator. Nor for them to circle a point due south, nor for them to move in a vertical circle about you at the equator.
FE soundly debunked.
At base level, this just comes down to global transitional contingencies.
I take it that is just your fancy way of saying that Earth is round and you refuse to admit it?