Build 600 upgrade - zigzag indicator does not work as before
I don't know if there are other factors involved, but you could try disabling the "if(InpBackstep>=InpDepth)" condition and see if it works.
My "ZigZagZug" indicator still seems to be working for the most part. You can try that if that will help you out. (https://www.mql5.com/en/code/11094)
But my code has extra features which might be overkill for what you need. Alternatively, use the old code (for Build 509) and see if it compiles and works correctly with the newer builds. There is a version here on the codebase (https://www.mql5.com/en/code/7796) which should be the same as the old one.
I don't know if there are other factors involved, but you could try disabling the "if(InpBackstep>=InpDepth)" condition and see if it works.
My "ZigZagZug" indicator still seems to be working for the most part. You can try that if that will help you out. (https://www.mql5.com/en/code/11094)
But my code has extra features which might be overkill for what you need. Alternatively, use the old code (for Build 509) and see if it compiles and works correctly with the newer builds. There is a version here on the codebase (https://www.mql5.com/en/code/7796) which should be the same as the old one.
thanks FMIC.
I didn't check the code - though that should have been my first port of call. The code looks very different in places, which would suggest that would be the reason it behaves differently.
I just can't believe they would change the way an indicator would work without telling anyone.
I have build 509 on another machine so still had the old code and have tried to get that to compile but there are error messages, which are beyond my skillset.
Nevertheless this highlights that i cannot trust this code or any of the code in my other indicators, so this will mean rerunning optimizations for the 12 strategies that I have running. This alone will be hundreds of hours of work again, and time that I will be out of the market!
As it happens i do have other variations of the zigzag running as well which use percentage, which are not affected, but again, i will have to retest these as well.
I hope Metaquotes are taken to task for the nightmare they have caused everyone.
Hi
I was forced onto build 600 by metaquotes - no warning.
Fortunately I was working on my pc, and saw the cpu go through the roof due to all the error message processing. Log files hit 265mb in 10 mins per platform.
I hate to think what would have happened had i not been in front of the pc.
Zero communication from my brokers Fxopen and Pepperstone - yes i will name and shame! And zero communication from Metaquotes.
MetaQuotes have been talking about this change since July 2013 https://forum.mql4.com/56885
Your Brokers have your contact details, you are their customer . . . I was contacted by one of the Brokers I use.
MetaQuotes have been talking about this change since July 2013 https://forum.mql4.com/56885
totally agree that the brokers should have made more effort to contact their clients, but that doesn't let the developers off the hook in my book.
Perfect example would be car manufacturers - if there is a problem is it the manufacturer - the people that actually created the problem, or the car dealers, that should be reaching out to the users/owners...
Metaquotes have peoples emails via the forum. They could have made more effort IMO, which is an opinion that seems to be shared by others from what I have read so far.
totally agree that the brokers should have made more effort to contact their clients, but that doesn't let the developers off the hook in my book.
Perfect example would be car manufacturers - if there is a problem is it the manufacturer - the people that actually created the problem, or the car dealers, that should be reaching out to the users/owners...
Metaquotes have peoples emails via the forum. They could have made more effort IMO, which is an opinion that seems to be shared by others from what I have read so far.
What about the majority of MT4 Users that never visit this forum ? should they be ignored ?
I would imagine that a large percentage of people that write strategies, have logged onto this forum at some point. Wouldn't be a catch all I agree, but they have to make some effort. I can see you are playing devils advocate, but it is juts my opinion that more should have been done.
This is going to generate a lot of work for a lot of people. And it affects both non-professionals and companies/professional traders, who may have resources/developers to accommodate this. Personally, (as you know from all the help you have given me), my development skills are basic, so this is a big task for me. This is not my fulltime job, so it will take me a while to get it all working and tested again, and this is now time out of the market for me. I have already tried to compile using the new compiler and have several errors, which I will try to address, or if i get stuck will post back.
Do you know how I can contact their support so that we can have an explanation of the changes to the Zigzag indicator, and a definition of how it works now? Looking at the codebase there doesn't seem to be an update.
cheers
Simon
This was the most ignorant, inconsiderate, and amateurish stunt I've seen in this community.
I spent a ton of time building out the platform to suit my needs and have been trading it for years.
In one fell unannounced swoop, half of that work is in the trash along with my ability to trade.
Some of us are traders...not hobbyist coders. Who has time for this nonsense?
You are now costing me money. A%$&($%@
This was the most ignorant, inconsiderate, and amateurish stunt I've seen in this community.
I spent a ton of time building out the platform to suit my needs and have been trading it for years.
In one fell unannounced swoop, half of that work is in the trash along with my ability to trade.
Some of us are traders...not hobbyist coders. Who has time for this nonsense?
You are now costing me money. A%$&($%@
Stop posting the same message all over the place. If you have a grievance, then take it with MetaQuotes directly.
We are just users like you and have nothing to with it. At least we are trying to adapt and make the best of it.
Do you know how I can contact their support so that we can have an explanation of the changes to the Zigzag indicator, and a definition of how it works now? Looking at the codebase there doesn't seem to be an update.
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
You agree to website policy and terms of use
Hi
I was forced onto build 600 by metaquotes - no warning.
Fortunately I was working on my pc, and saw the cpu go through the roof due to all the error message processing. Log files hit 265mb in 10 mins per platform.
I hate to think what would have happened had i not been in front of the pc.
Zero communication from my brokers Fxopen and Pepperstone - yes i will name and shame! And zero communication from Metaquotes.
For such a big change this is disgusting. I have read the main thread and it seems I am not the only one who is annoyed.
(vent over)
That aside...
The Zigzag indicator seemed to be the biggest culprit so far. It no longer works as before.
The error messages:
Backstep cannot be greater or equal to Depth
I have / had successful EA's running on previous build 509 where the optimization parameters suggested using
Depth = 2 ; Deviation = 5 ; Backstep = 8
This is just one example - i have several pairs / versions that were set this way. All working perfectly.
This is the standard ZigZag indicator supplied with the platform.
Any ideas how this can be made to work as before?
thanks
Simon