Using the MXML in the original mail: http://imgbox.com/5JcXcQju
However for some reason, after the width exceeds some value, width=50% seems to stop working, or maybe some maxHeight is reached? and I get this: http://imgbox.com/Sb6fkDW4 Using a BitmapImage the result is the desired (also, note, that in this case scaleX and scaleY doesn't make any difference, as width is constrained by the 50%, and the height seems to be dependent of the height). http://imgbox.com/TsfJgT57 http://imgbox.com/mobddmWR On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: > Can you post a link to a screenshot of what you are seeing? > > -Alex > > On 5/7/15, 7:21 AM, "Héctor A" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >I've been making some tests on my own. On some of them the number of > >Images > >inside each HGroup seemed to affect how the layout was performed, strange. > >Anyway, I've seen that using BitmapImage instead of Image (with > >scaleMode="letterbox", of course) gave the desired result, and since this > >case doesn't require any special loading control nor skin the designer can > >follow this route, and since BitmapImage performs better, +1 to it, but it > >would be nice to see this behaviour in an Image control. > > > >On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Héctor A <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Maybe a -1 could be passed to height or width to simulate "auto". > >> > >> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Héctor A <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> I guess it's this same issue: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21132203/flash-spark-image-width-100- > >>>height-auto > >>> > >>> So still no workaround in pure MXML? Seems a bit of a letdown, would be > >>> nice to have and may even be common sense. I'd say we all needed it at > >>> least once, but I've always resorted to use code. > >>> > >>> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Héctor A <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> Sorry, 320/160DPI. Anyway, that's not the issue, and it's seemingly > >>>> working as expected. > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Héctor A <[email protected]> > >>>>wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> It also seemed strange to me. It's because of DPIs, the images were > >>>>> done for 360DPI, targetting 180DPI. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Tom Chiverton <[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 07/05/15 10:01, Héctor A wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> scaleX="0.5" scaleY="0.5" smooth="true" width="50%" > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What's the reasoning behind giving a scale factor for both axis as > >>>>>> well as a width and expecting the height to adjust ? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Tom > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >
