I have the same problem with image positioning while moving or rotating an image. If I compile this code:
.flash bbox=200x100 filename="ftest1.swf" fps=25 .png slika1 "pict01.png" .put slika1 pin=center x=100 y=50 scale=0% .frame 50 .change slika1 rotate=360 scale=100% .frame 100 .end the picture finnishes as rotated for only around 350 degrees (see attachment p1.png). If I, trying to compensate, change the code to this: .flash bbox=200x100 filename="ftest1.swf" fps=25 .png slika1 "pict01.png" .put slika1 pin=center x=100 y=50 scale=0% .frame 50 .change slika1 rotate=361 scale=100% .frame 51 .change slika1 rotate=360 .frame 100 .end then it is almost correct, but not quite (rotated around 358 degrees). But if I change the code as Mick suggested (thanks Mick!), it ends up rotated correctly (of course, in HTML embedding code I leave width=200 and height=100): .flash bbox=2000x1000 filename="ftest1.swf" fps=25 .png slika1 "pict01.png" .put slika1 pin=center x=1000 y=500 scale=0% .frame 50 .change slika1 rotate=360 scale=1000% .frame 100 .end The swfc version I'm using is 0.9.0 and was installed in Ubuntu 9.10 from Ubuntu repositories. I checked viewing the .swf with Opera and Firefox browser, in Ubuntu Linux, and WinXP, and I get the same results in all of them. Regards, nevenq > Hi Chris, > > Refusing to give up, I took a look at some of the code. Twips seem > to crop up quite a lot in various routines. I had assumed the metric > used for size, position etc. was pixels. Out of interest I > multiplied all my pixel values by 20 to convert them to twips. This > gave: > > .flash filename="test_swfc.swf" version=6 fps=50 bbox=8700x2440 > .png img1 filename="test.png" > .put img1 scalex=8700 scaley=2440 > .end > > > The image now renders perfectly. The HTML maintains the original size > in pixels as specified by the object tag. Notice I had to add the > scalex and scaley properties to the .put command. Additionally, any > subsequent zooming or moving of the image is now carried out with a > great deal more accuracy. > > I'm still not sure I fully understand why this method works better. > It would be nice if someone could maybe explain what is happening > under the bonnet and how twips and pixels fit into the bigger picture. > Anyway, for now I have a workaround :-) > > Cheers, > Mick
<<attachment: p1.png>>
<<attachment: pict01.png>>
