HIGH DEFINITION CHARTING ...BUGS OR WHAT???
Posted: Jan 25 2009
All below presented cases were made with MC Version 5.0 Beta 2 (Build 1781) and TransAct data feed.
MultiCharts
https://www.multicharts.com/discussion/
* In QM did you set "custom" hours for the regular session ? (you MUST do that)The attached screenshot explains better than words. I set NQ as ''CME: Equity Index Futures [e-mini] (Globex)'' in QM + I set sessions to Regular in MC yet MC still plots non-regular session bars. Really confusing.
Hi Steven,* In QM did you set "custom" hours for the regular session ? (you MUST do that)The attached screenshot explains better than words. I set NQ as ''CME: Equity Index Futures [e-mini] (Globex)'' in QM + I set sessions to Regular in MC yet MC still plots non-regular session bars. Really confusing.
** I DON'T use pre-made templates like that, set you own days and times, then it will work. (does on mine)Hi Steven,* In QM did you set "custom" hours for the regular session ? (you MUST do that)The attached screenshot explains better than words. I set NQ as ''CME: Equity Index Futures [e-mini] (Globex)'' in QM + I set sessions to Regular in MC yet MC still plots non-regular session bars. Really confusing.
In QM I set the symbol according to the custom template for Globex availabe in QM. Please see the screenshot.
Regards
Hi Tresor,My MC fails to plot Volume Bars correctly. It fails to split the data into equal volume bars. Please see the screenshot attached.
Regards
Hi Tresor,MY MC fails to plot point original bars correctly. Please see the screenshot.
The logic of plotting change bars is the same as that of volume bars (and point bars). See one of my posts above.My MC seems to plot candles badly with Transact data feed for all available resolutions (except for time resolutions). The attached screenshot explains it better.
Regards
Steven is right. To have adequate regular sessions, you need to first specify them in QuoteManager -> Edit Symbol -> Sessions -> Use Custom Sessions.The attached screenshot explains better than words. I set NQ as ''CME: Equity Index Futures [e-mini] (Globex)'' in QM + I set sessions to Regular in MC yet MC still plots non-regular session bars. Really confusing.
Neither DID I (I always used my custom session settings) untill a few days ago when I tried to experiment with MC on a wider scale. Thanks for the advice. I will quit using the templates as they are useless.
** I DON'T use pre-made templates like that, set you own days and times, then it will work. (does on mine)
Marina,
Steven is right. To have adequate regular sessions, you need to first specify them in QuoteManager -> Edit Symbol -> Sessions -> Use Custom Sessions.
Once the changes have been made, reload or re-create the chart.
Marina, I did have a look a the screenshot and what I noticed was:Hi Tresor,
If you look closely at your screenshot, you will notice that the subchart with the volume histogram has a red line at the bottom that exactly equals the hight of the 100 volume bars.
You explained the reason for inroducing the mechanism that is responsible for not plotting the volume bars correctly under certain conditions, namely to prevent the memory consumption. That was okay a year or two years ago. It has no logical justification today. It only confuses.MultiCharts has the following mechanism of plotting volume bars:
If a tick arrives whose volume is too large for the chosen resolution, this volume is split between a number of bars. However, to prevent memory consumption in the case of huge volumes, the maximum number of splits is 5.
Sure, get rid of it if it can't work properly.Hi Tresor,
Point (original) is a rudiment of earlier stages of MC development. It was the very first implementation of point bars which subsequently turned out to be incorrect. It was removed from the list of available resolutions but then was returned for some of the users wanted to have this particular resolution as opposed to the new (and correct) point bars.
We will remove this option from the list of available resolutions. Meanwhile, I would recommend avoiding plotting point (original) charts.
Hi Tresor,Marina, I did have a look a the screenshot and what I noticed was:Hi Tresor,
If you look closely at your screenshot, you will notice that the subchart with the volume histogram has a red line at the bottom that exactly equals the hight of the 100 volume bars.
(i) a majority of bars comply to the crtiterion of being completed at 100 contracts; and
(ii) a minrity of bars fails to comply to the criterion of being completed at 100 contracts (MC complets some bars at 300+ contracts and some bars at 70-) - this is not acceptable for someone who assumes all bars will be equal in terms of volume generated.
You explained the reason for inroducing the mechanism that is responsible for not plotting the volume bars correctly under certain conditions, namely to prevent the memory consumption. That was okay a year or two years ago. It has no logical justification today. It only confuses.MultiCharts has the following mechanism of plotting volume bars:
If a tick arrives whose volume is too large for the chosen resolution, this volume is split between a number of bars. However, to prevent memory consumption in the case of huge volumes, the maximum number of splits is 5.
Personal computers now-a-days are more powerfull than industrial computers at the time TSS was introducing this mechanism into MC. There is no need to keep this mechanism alive any more, even if this means that during high volume spikes I will receive same looking 10 / 20 / whatever horizontal bars in a row.
As I mentioned MC also plots volume bars that are not only over-complete, but are also under-complete (not the ones at the end of day), i.e. when you set resolution of 100 contracts, MC plots some bars of less than 100 contracts during the day. This should also be dealt with.
Regards
PS. This is how computing power of CPUs changed over the last 2 years: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
All I undestood is that MC will continue plotting volume bars incorrectly.P.P.S. I hope the above explanation makes sense.
Marina,This reasoning is not actually correct. If you request an adequate volume resolution for a symbol, occasional spikes in volume won't harm your bars. However, some users choose resolutions that have nothing to do with volumes that are actually traded for a particular symbol. This actually happens quite a lot. It is not uncommon for somebody to request a 2 volume chart for MCFX which is traded in thousands of contracts. As you understand, trying to split such volumes into 2 volume bars will generate enormous number of bars.
Hi Marina,Hi Tresor,
The volume spikes in your screenshot look abnormal. The bar with the volume of 2,781 is huge and it could have resulted only after the original tick was split into 5 bars: 4 having the volume of 1,000 and 1 having the volume of 2,781.
I checked tick data in TS for the whole of 01/26/2009 and the largest spick there was slightly over 1,000. In other words, volume data provided by TransAct probably contains abnormal values.
Marina, eSignal is the same filtered crap like TS. You know it for sure from this and many other forums. Please check it with high quality unfiltered data feed, like Transact.Hi Tresor,
We ran another check using eSignal's data. The results were consistent what TS showed.
Marina, the best scientific method of arriving to any conclusion is by trying to falsificate the thesis. This means that one should not look for arguments that support one's thesis, like ''it has been proven correct many times in the past'' (because there may be thousands of favouring evidences); instead one should focus on finding at least one argument that can falsificte / nagate one's thesis (which is cheaper and less time consuming than looking for aguments that support the thesis).As for the logic of plotting volume bars, it has been proven correct many times in the past and for now we are not planning to change it.
I do not want to argue with you on what quality means with regard to data feed. The fact is Marina used other than Transact data feed to check if MC plots bars correctly. Obviously, she could not have arrive at the same conclusion as mine, as she did not use the same data.I have no information about Transact, but I do know from painful experience that "unfiltered" data from the exchanges have many error ticks in them. "Filtering" (the thing you despise) is what corrects those errors. I don't know where you got the idea that "unfiltered" is higher quality than "filtered", but you've got it just backwards. eSignal and TS provide much higher quality data than the unfiltered vendors, precisely because of their filtering.
We have not been able to reproduce the above problem. Try reloading charts. If that does not help, please contact us either via LiveChat or by phone for a remote connection session.- there are differences in price levels between daily HHs and LLs when comparing them to hourly HHs and hourly LLs. Both daily and hourly charts' sessions time were set to regular in MC.
There is a bug on providers who, like TransAct do not provide daily bars. Will be fixed in future MC versions.- in this screenshot I also documented vanishing daily bars (2 bars are missing during one week).
Tresor,Marina, eSignal is the same filtered crap like TS. You know it for sure from this and many other forums. Please check it with high quality unfiltered data feed, like Transact.Hi Tresor,
We ran another check using eSignal's data. The results were consistent what TS showed.
Marina, the best scientific method of arriving to any conclusion is by trying to falsificate the thesis. This means that one should not look for arguments that support one's thesis, like ''it has been proven correct many times in the past'' (because there may be thousands of favouring evidences); instead one should focus on finding at least one argument that can falsificte / nagate one's thesis (which is cheaper and less time consuming than looking for aguments that support the thesis).As for the logic of plotting volume bars, it has been proven correct many times in the past and for now we are not planning to change it.
The screenshot provided in one of the earlier posts clearly shows that the logic of plotting volume bars is incorrect. WHY? BECAUSE IT SHOWS THAT MC FAILS TO PLOT BARS OF EQUAL VOLUME! One simple screenshot has thrown all other evidences that you were gathering all those years.
Regards
Marina,Tresor,
As was explained on a number of occasions in the past, THE ALGORITHM OF PLOTTING VOUME BARS IN MC IS PERFECTLY CORRECT.
Your screenshot showed 100 volume bars with a volume indicator applied in a subchart. That indicator showed several spikes.
I think it is reasonable to have a limit....But the number of possible divisions is limited to 5...
Tresor,Marina,Tresor,
As was explained on a number of occasions in the past, THE ALGORITHM OF PLOTTING VOUME BARS IN MC IS PERFECTLY CORRECT.
Your screenshot showed 100 volume bars with a volume indicator applied in a subchart. That indicator showed several spikes.
My screenshot is showing 1,000 contract volume bars, not 100 volume bars! Please see the screenshot once again - the status bar.
Your algorithm may work well with filtered data feeds, but fails with unfiltered data feeds.
Regards.
Tresor,Marina,Tresor,
As was explained on a number of occasions in the past, THE ALGORITHM OF PLOTTING VOUME BARS IN MC IS PERFECTLY CORRECT.
Your screenshot showed 100 volume bars with a volume indicator applied in a subchart. That indicator showed several spikes.
My screenshot is showing 1,000 contract volume bars, not 100 volume bars! Please see the screenshot once again - the status bar.
Your algorithm may work well with filtered data feeds, but fails with unfiltered data feeds.
Regards.
The chart you were refering to shows that MC, due to the existing logic of plotting volume bars, is unable to create volume bars of 100 contracts.Tresor,
I was referring to http://forum.tssupport.com/download.php?id=1902
Looks like 100 volume bars to me.
Marina, your explanations were clear enough for a computer layman as myself to understand what algorithm you use when plotting volume bars. I do understand the logic of this algorithm very well and ... I do not like it.P.S. I have explained how the algorithm of plotting volume bars works as well as under what conditions you can get spikes.
Sure, I am the only person in this forum who does not like this logic (for reasons explained earlier). There wouldn't be much sense to introduce the changes in MC just for one customer. I suggest that we stop this thread in this point.P.P.S. As of now, we do not have plans to change the logic of creating volume bars.
The increase of allowed divisions from 5 to 10 might do good job for 1,000 contracts bars, but again it might not be satisfactory for e.g. 100 contracts bars.If data that you based your charts on were correct and such volume spikes were nor an abnormality, it would really mean that we would need to change the algorithm of plotting volume bars. We would need to at least increase the number of allowed divisions from 5 to 10.
Marina, if MC gets deprived of the ''division mechanism'', MC would plot equal volume bars, regardless of data accuracy / inaccuracy. The downside of course would be that MC might work slowly. With the introduction of the ''division mechanism'' you showed you care about the customers who do not have state-of-the-art computers (a majority of us) and watch numerous charts with symbols of small resolutions.However, I have a number of reasons to question the accuracy of your data.
1. I compared ..................
2. ...................................
3. ....................... ........... This volume is not lost.
I will check this once MC with the new Transact data feed support is released and will report if I encounter a behaviour that would be specifically painfull.It is not a matter or whether you are the only user with this problem or not. If there is really a problem we will fix that. It is just that so far we do not see any problem at all.
Marina:Tresor,
As was explained on a number of occasions in the past, THE ALGORITHM OF PLOTTING VOUME BARS IN MC IS PERFECTLY CORRECT.
Your screenshot showed 100 volume bars with a volume indicator applied in a subchart. That indicator showed several spikes. Spikes are the result of the following:
MultiCharts plots volume bars by dividing volume into equal portions, in your case, 100 contracts. Now, if a tick arrives whose volume is more than 100 contracts it is divided into equal 100 contract portions. But the number of possible divisions is limited to 5. Thus if a tick arrives whose volume is, say, 800 contracts, you will get four 100-contract bars and one 400-contract bar. This mechanism has been implemented as a protection against cases when users try plotting volumes way smaller than normal volume values for a symbol. If the number of divisions were not limited, your memory would have been eaten up by profusely multiplying bars. You can only imagine what would happen if somebody tries plotting 1-contract bars for a symbol that is traded in thousands of contracts – which isn’t out of the realm of possibility.
The spikes in your screenshot that appear against the background of numerous perfectly equal 100-contract bars are a result of huge volume values transmitted by TransAct. MultiCharts divided the volume received in a tick into four 100-contract bars and dumped the rest of the volume into the 5 bar. As I mentioned earlier, neither TS nor eSignal have revealed any similar spikes over the period of time in question. You are saying that the quality of data by TS or eSignal is inferior to that of TransAct. I would not want to comment on that in this particular thread.
Hello fs,This issue about volume charts was reported last year already in this thread:
http://forum.tssupport.com/viewtopic.php?t=5533
Hi Andrew,You should understand that 5 bar limitation has been created as protection measure from beginners who don't understand how to use the volume bars properly.
..............................
I hope my solution will work for all groups of users.
The screenshot illustrates that if there is no limit of splits for volume bars any program will consume all available memory and finally will crash.Hi Andrew,You should understand that 5 bar limitation has been created as protection measure from beginners who don't understand how to use the volume bars properly.
..............................
I hope my solution will work for all groups of users.
I do not understand written Russian (although I understand when it is spoken) so I have problems with understanding what the Windows warning was. In this thread http://forum.tssupport.com/viewtopic.ph ... 6&start=25 Marina said that MC uses only 1 core for the purpose of calculating / drawing price bars.
Maybe the best solution solution would be to allow MC to use all available cores for calculating / drawing price bars? Instead of one core, MC would be using two or four cores. If so, the problem with CPU's high usage might go.
Regards
Please publish the counter study. We need to see how it is calculated.With a few next posts I would like to discuss issues that I have with all of Multicharts’ resolutions. After I discovered that Multicharts plots volume bars incorrectly I made extensive research on the quality of the bars’ plotting engine in MC. I believe that volume bar resolution quality is a small problem when compared to other resolutions. Other resolutions are even worse.
I will present the cases in the following order (the same order as in Format Symbol – Settings):
Tick
Contract
Point
Point (original)
Change
Time (second / minute / hour / day / week / month/ quarter / year)
On each subchart there is a study called Counter which tells if the resolution was plotted correctly or not. The study works this way:
(i) if the red bar stops in the yellow dot, this means that the bar was calculated and plotted correctly
(ii) if the red bar does not reach the yellow dot and remains partially blue, this means that the bar was closed before reaching the assumed resolution – such a bar is not complete
(iii) if the bar exceeds the yellow dot and plots above it, this means that the bar wasn’t closed on time – such a bar is over-complete
Constant Volume Bar "Holes"
another problem with MC's constant volume bar logic:
it seems that when the tick has more contracts than the bar specification,
MC simply divide the number by 5.
e.g.
if the chart calls for a 100 contract volume bar
and the tick has 250 contracts,
MC would simply divide the tick into 100, 100, and 50.
you will see:
the first bar with 100 contracts,
the second bar with 100 contracts,
the third bar with 50 contracts !!!
whatever comes after is NOT appended to the third bar, but start anew in the fourth bar.
please see attached for illustration.
THIS IS NOT HIGH DEFINATION CHARTING
Hi Andrew,Constant Volume Bar "Holes"
another problem with MC's constant volume bar logic:
it seems that when the tick has more contracts than the bar specification,
MC simply divide the number by 5.
e.g.
if the chart calls for a 100 contract volume bar
and the tick has 250 contracts,
MC would simply divide the tick into 100, 100, and 50.
you will see:
the first bar with 100 contracts,
the second bar with 100 contracts,
the third bar with 50 contracts !!!
whatever comes after is NOT appended to the third bar, but start anew in the fourth bar.
please see attached for illustration.
THIS IS NOT HIGH DEFINATION CHARTING
TJ,
What version are you running?
The bug you are illustrating has been fixed in MultiCharts.4.0.1724.400_Release.exe.
According to visual signs you are running 4.0, but it could be beta which doesn't have the fix. Please let me know.
Hello Andrew,Please publish the counter study. We need to see how it is calculated.
Andrew:Constant Volume Bar "Holes"
another problem with MC's constant volume bar logic:
it seems that when the tick has more contracts than the bar specification,
MC simply divide the number by 5.
e.g.
if the chart calls for a 100 contract volume bar
and the tick has 250 contracts,
MC would simply divide the tick into 100, 100, and 50.
you will see:
the first bar with 100 contracts,
the second bar with 100 contracts,
the third bar with 50 contracts !!!
whatever comes after is NOT appended to the third bar, but start anew in the fourth bar.
please see attached for illustration.
THIS IS NOT HIGH DEFINATION CHARTING
TJ,
What version are you running?
The bug you are illustrating has been fixed in MultiCharts.4.0.1724.400_Release.exe.
According to visual signs you are running 4.0, but it could be beta which doesn't have the fix. Please let me know.
Hello Andrew,Please publish the counter study. We need to see how it is calculated.
I would be reluctant to publish the study. At least not now for two reasons:
1. It is still a Beta (it uses the computer’s time to measure time resolution’s correctness while it should use EL Time&Sales, which my programmer could not get from MC nor I could get a straight answer in this forum if Time&Sales is available in MC http://forum.tssupport.com/viewtopic.php?t=5985 ) – that’s why I bought watch-stop yesterday to verify this study. If I publish this study, some less experienced users might be confused.
2. I paid for the study a few hundred bucks + it contains a number of features not shown on the screenshots
Anyway, whether I decide to publish the study or not, you can EASILY see the study does it job, i.e. it detects bars that were incorrectly calculated and incorrectly plotted like in this example http://forum.tssupport.com/download.php?id=1986 or like in this example http://forum.tssupport.com/download.php?id=1987
GENERAL COMMENTS
I bought MC 1.5 years ago. Since then, despite I was not very happy about the way of the product is being developed (focusing on bells and whistles), I tried to support MC the way a newbie can (mostly by reporting bugs). I even started a thread devoted to MC on kreslik.com for the benefit of MC users on this forum: http://kreslik.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1141
Since you are nearing to releasing MC Gold, I think you need to get the basic issues in MC fixed (once and for all) before you release MC Gold or with the release of MC Gold. I know you need to keep on adding new eye-catching features to have a constant stream of revenues generated by new customers.
But with all those candy-like new features, based on bad charting and bad data management (and bad math / algorithms that support charting and data management) MC looks like a giant on clay legs. I think you should add some strength and flexibility to these legs. Simply stop working on whatever bell and whistle you are working now and make basic features (charting and data management) rock-solid.
I never posted any negative comments about MC on any internet forum. I was only being ironic on this forum from time to time. I did not rate MC on elitetrader.com because I thought MC was not ready for my positive rating yet.
I will hopefully rate MC very positive on elitetrader.com is when you release Gold version. My rating will be very positive if you only fix charting and data management.
Regards
According to our tests all tick bars are correct. Moreover we don't split it so it should be correct since volume issue is not relevant here. Please reproduce wrong tick bars using volume indicator, not your Counter one. It is possible it doesn't work properly.TICK RESOLUTION
With some of the supported data feeds MC plots tick resolutions bars properly, but with some data feeds MC plots tick bars improperly. Screenshots with good and bad tick resolution plotting attached.
On one screenshot MC plots equal 100 tick bars – very good! On the other screenshot MC does not plot 100 ticks properly. Some of the bars are 200+, some are 400+ tick bars. This is far from very good!
One should not trade, apply studies, backtest and optimize strategies based on tick resolution unless one is sure that his data feed is processed properly by MC. Tick resolution is miscalculated and badly displayed. Tick resolution should be removed from MC or fixed.
[/u]
It works properly on our end and if you set right settings in QM It should work for you. Please see my screenshots. If you use wrong settings you bars may be spitted and after the fifth bar you will have a longer one.POINT RESOLUTION
With all of the supported data feeds MC calculates and plots Range bars incorrectly! Screenshot attached. Please see the differences in ranges.
One should not trade, apply studies, backtest and optimize strategies based on Point resolution. Point resolution is miscalculated and badly displayed. Point resolution should be removed from MC or fixed.
Here you are: a screenshot with both Counter and the standard volume indicator put together.You should understand that if I don't have the indicator code I never know how you calculate it. Please use the standard volume indicator or disclose the code. Otherwise the screenshots don’t allow us to be 100% that it is true.
As Marina told you before it is a legacy and it is not right, but some people think that they are very good and begged us not to remove it!POINT (ORIGINAL) RESOLUTION
With all of the supported data feeds MC plots Point (original) bars incorrectly! Screenshot attached. Please see the differences in ranges. Marina already admitted that this resolution is not calculated and displayed properly.
One should not trade, apply studies, backtest and optimize strategies based on Point (original) resolution. Point (original) resolution is miscalculated and badly displayed. Point (original) resolution should be removed from MC or fixed.
Please use the DLL attached and you will not encounter the spikes. What I want you to reproduce is under-complete bars.Here you are: a screenshot with both Counter and the standard volume indicator put together.You should understand that if I don't have the indicator code I never know how you calculate it. Please use the standard volume indicator or disclose the code. Otherwise the screenshots don’t allow us to be 100% that it is true.
Regards
Tresor,But with all those candy-like new features, based on bad charting and bad data management (and bad math / algorithms that support charting and data management) MC looks like a giant on clay legs. I think you should add some strength and flexibility to these legs. Simply stop working on whatever bell and whistle you are working now and make basic features (charting and data management) rock-solid.
I will hopefully rate MC very positive on elitetrader.com is when you release Gold version. My rating will be very positive if you only fix charting and data management.
Regards
Here is the screenshot with DAX settings (the same as yours). As you can see the Range Bars are not plotted properly.I've just checked range bars on DAX symbol and they are all identical. I can send screenshots to prove. I need to know your settings in QuoteManager for this symbol. If they are wrong the bars will be spitted improperly.
Yeah but something that is not working may only confuse the new and unexperienced users and may make them frustrated.As Marina told you before it is a legacy and it is not right, but some people think that they are very good and begged us not to remove it!POINT (ORIGINAL) RESOLUTION
With all of the supported data feeds MC plots Point (original) bars incorrectly! Screenshot attached. Please see the differences in ranges. Marina already admitted that this resolution is not calculated and displayed properly.
One should not trade, apply studies, backtest and optimize strategies based on Point (original) resolution. Point (original) resolution is miscalculated and badly displayed. Point (original) resolution should be removed from MC or fixed.
Please refer for this to the e-mail I sent to you and 3 brokers (and data feed providers) and the broker's reply. 30th Jan 2009.Tresor,
Could you specify "bad data management"? What exactly doesn't work?
Andrew, I am still using the beta 2. What I will do after a few days or a week (after I am back from my holiday for which I am taking off tomorrow morning), I will dowload the beta 5 which will hopefully have the promised revised processing of Transact data feed and I will run all the experiments once again.Please use the DLL attached and you will not encounter the spikes. What I want you to reproduce is under-complete bars.
I strongly suggest you to install the beta 4 and the DLL. Otherwise it is likely you waste your time.
Tresor,
Maybe MC's wrongly displaying tick bars with this data feed http://forum.tssupport.com/download.php?id=1983 and properly displaying tick bars with the other data feed http://forum.tssupport.com/download.php?id=1982 is data management-related, and not charting-related? Just guessing
Yes, I need to it see what is wrong.After the experiments are done I will communicate the results to you via PM + I will send you Counter study for your eyes only (please remember the study is a beta that will not work perfectly with Time resolutions).
We can use the forum for all communications, because we don’t have thing that we want hide. If you prefer private communication it is ok for us too.After a perfection in MC's charting is achieved on all supported data feeds (also on Change and Time resolutions not posted by me here today, although promised) we will both communicate this happily to the members of this forum.
My goal is to prove that our charting is correct (except volume bars that we already increased to 30 splits). If my arguments are not correct, we will fix the problems. So far we see that your range bars tests are incorrect.
You will be able to release Gold version of MC and I will finally be able to post my positive rating for MC on elitetrader.com
Would this plan be acceptable for you?
Transact doesn’t give us correct settings for each symbol. IB Does. This is why we take by default exchange settings. However the exchanges settings can’t be true for all symbols trades on the exchange and this is why it will not work in all cases.
Regards
P.S. In case changes to the data management will be needed, it would be nice AT THE SAME TIME to adjust MC to official symbol settings given by exchanges, i.e. it would be sensical and logical to use 0.5 Min Movement for FDAX or 0.25 for ES as discussed in this thread http://forum.tssupport.com/viewtopic.ph ... t=settings
At the moment finding the right settings for symbols in MC is a neck-breaking procedure for both newbies and experienced users.
You are right on this point. I didn't realize that clearing cache is needed. My bad in this case. I have only 16 new bars so it is too little to draw conclusion at this stage.My goal is to prove that our charting is correct (except volume bars that we already increased to 30 splits). If my arguments are not correct, we will fix the problems. So far we see that your range bars tests are incorrect.
Here is why:
You use 100 points bars. 100 points is about full day movement of DAX. You will have 1 or 2 bars a day. And the second bar will be incomplete due to the end of the session. Take a look at your screenshot. You have many small bars that are even not close to 100 points.
Explanation is quite simple. You used wrong default settings in QuoteManager. After I published my instructions you changed the settings to correct ones. However it will not take effect since the old wrong bars are cached in QM. You should Close charts, go to QM->select symbol->Clear cache. If you use the settings I provided before you chart will correct and you will have 1-2 bars a days.
Your range bars were different, because our 5 bar split mechanism closed the 5th bar.
Tresor,
You are right on this point. I didn't realize that clearing cache is needed. My bad in this case. I have only 16 new bars so it is too little to draw conclusion at this stage.
Symbol: QMI will be enormously grateful if a kind soul could tell me the proper symbol settings in QM:
Price Scale
Daily Limit
Min. Movement
Big Point Value
for the following symbols: 6E, EMD, ES, FESX, GC, NQ, TF and YM.
Thanks
it is not correct settings.Symbol: QMI will be enormously grateful if a kind soul could tell me the proper symbol settings in QM:
Price Scale
Daily Limit
Min. Movement
Big Point Value
for the following symbols: 6E, EMD, ES, FESX, GC, NQ, TF and YM.
Thanks
Price Scale = 1/1000
Daily Limit = 1
Min. Movement = 25
Big Point Value = 500
Fine.Andrew,
Rest assured that if the incorrect results on resolution quality that I was given by MC result from my entering bad symbol settings in QM, I will remove all my posts (expect for volume) and I will remove the screenshots.
Regards
Andrew,it is not correct settings.Symbol: QMI will be enormously grateful if a kind soul could tell me the proper symbol settings in QM:
Price Scale
Daily Limit
Min. Movement
Big Point Value
for the following symbols: 6E, EMD, ES, FESX, GC, NQ, TF and YM.
Thanks
Price Scale = 1/1000
Daily Limit = 1
Min. Movement = 25
Big Point Value = 500
6E
http://www.cme.com/trading/prd/fx/euro_OCS.html
EMD
http://www.cme.com/trading/prd/equity/s ... 0_FCS.html
ES
http://www.cme.com/trading/prd/equity/e ... 0_FCS.html
and so on. See CME.com
you mean the split is dynamically updated ?Fine.
The Volume bars should be good as well since we've increased the number of splits. Please test and let us know.
Tresor meant QuoteManager when he said QM. You mean qm symbol.
Andrew,
Please can you tell me what is wrong in QM Symbol setting, the values I quoted are from IB (see attachment).
Super
You will have to download Beta 5 to fix the issue. Beta 5 is under development now.you mean the split is dynamically updated ?Fine.
The Volume bars should be good as well since we've increased the number of splits. Please test and let us know.
I don't need to download a new version of MC?
Andrew,According to our tests all tick bars are correct. Moreover we don't split it so it should be correct since volume issue is not relevant here. Please reproduce wrong tick bars using volume indicator, not your Counter one. It is possible it doesn't work properly.TICK RESOLUTION
With some of the supported data feeds MC plots tick resolutions bars properly, but with some data feeds MC plots tick bars improperly. Screenshots with good and bad tick resolution plotting attached.
On one screenshot MC plots equal 100 tick bars – very good! On the other screenshot MC does not plot 100 ticks properly. Some of the bars are 200+, some are 400+ tick bars. This is far from very good!
One should not trade, apply studies, backtest and optimize strategies based on tick resolution unless one is sure that his data feed is processed properly by MC. Tick resolution is miscalculated and badly displayed. Tick resolution should be removed from MC or fixed.
[/u]
because the computer will crash.Late to this thread and kind of skimmed it. One question
Why limit the number of splits? ....
MC should make a note on the Format Symbol page, that there is a split limit of 30.Nick,
Initially we didn't have any restrictions and it caused us a lot of support. Newbie set very small volumes or used wrong price scale/min movement settings. As a result MC generates billions of artificial bars that eventually consumed all recourses and crashed PC.
This is why decided to limit it. I agree that 5 splits are not adequate.
30 should work.
I agree, I think 30 should do.it dounds reasonable. Maybe we need to make a popup message when you select count-based resolutions. However I think 30 splits will work for all for at least a year or two:)
Ahh OK maybe have a parameter that defaults to 30? Then a user would have to explicitly change it. Actually its not really that big of a deal for me.Nick,
Initially we didn't have any restrictions and it caused us a lot of support. Newbie set very small volumes or used wrong price scale/min movement settings. As a result MC generates billions of artificial bars that eventually consumed all recourses and crashed PC.
This is why decided to limit it. I agree that 5 splits are not adequate.
30 should work.
Ahh OK maybe have a parameter that defaults to 30? Then a user would have to explicitly change it. Actually its not really that big of a deal for me.Nick,
Initially we didn't have any restrictions and it caused us a lot of support. Newbie set very small volumes or used wrong price scale/min movement settings. As a result MC generates billions of artificial bars that eventually consumed all recourses and crashed PC.
This is why decided to limit it. I agree that 5 splits are not adequate.
30 should work.