Topic: blank space above main image / below thumbnails

I see references to this question in the forum, however nothing that conclusively answers it.

The math in the code is rather convoluted (and for likely every logical reason, not bashing it) and it seems to me to be a fairly basic customization: how much blank space do you want above your main image.

If I put the thumbnails on the bottom, it pads the main image away from the top of the overall stage control

If I put the thumbnails on top, it adds no extra padding above the thumbnails thankfully, but then it leaves a too big space between the bottom of the thumbnail row and the top of the main image.

Why can't this be alot simpler? As a variable defined in the XML?

Or is there a clear workaround that will work, as none that I've seen in the forum yet are working for me.

Re: blank space above main image / below thumbnails

Did you try changing  the stagePadding value in the XML doc? Also, if you want a fixed layout, you can use the fixedLayout values in

For top and bottom thumbnail positions, the stageManager will try to vertically center the image and thumbnails. If the image is too big to fit the swf size, it will be scaled down.

Felix Turner
SimpleViewer Support Team.

Re: blank space above main image / below thumbnails

Hi Felix

Did try changing the stagePadding values, albeit I took it down to one and then zero from the default (40 I believe) - maybe I'll try going up instead..

I understand what is happening in the centering process, but (I think) what is maybe not so great is that the stage size itself is too large, and so centering it no matter the image size is going to make it appear as though there is dead space above and below the image...

idea: could it be that the code is (and Im not that great at debugging code but from what I can read of it this appears to be the case?) actually calculating the overall size of the stage by padding both the thumbnail row AND the main image, and then getting the positionals by dividing that by whatever factor (2 I believe) for vertical placement, thereby effectively creating two padded areas between a top row of thumbnails and the main image below? or maybe there is some default padding that is happening if the XML shows a zero?

what i mean is maybe it's doing this:

height thumbnail row +
padding for thumbnail row +
padding for main image +
height main image
divide by ? to find vertical placement

when in reality if the thumbnail is on top, it shouldn't try to pad the thumbnail row? just makes more sense...if a person developing a web page really wants it somewhere specific on their page, it makes way more sense for them to do it themselves in the html vis a vis a table or <p> rather than count on the swf generation to do it?

All my images are sized at 600 x 400 and Ive tried resizing the instance of the swf in the html to everything from 300 to 600 (height) and still same thing, the resizing happens yes but even if I've got everything proportionate the space still appears...also already done the whole div thing..