Coding gurus, this question is for you...

New comment
 

Hey ya'll,

Thanks for taking a peek at this question!

What is faster / better for using indicator values in an EA:

1) using iCustom to get indicator values

2) taking custom indicator logic and putting it directly in the EA.

I like iCustom, because it keeps things tidy, and up to date with any indicator changes. But, is it efficient?

I suppose it doesn't really matter with faster machines, but I'd love some feedback.

Thanks!

-CS

 
cubesteak:
Hey ya'll,

Thanks for taking a peek at this question!

What is faster / better for using indicator values in an EA:

1) using iCustom to get indicator values

2) taking custom indicator logic and putting it directly in the EA.

I like iCustom, because it keeps things tidy, and up to date with any indicator changes. But, is it efficient?

I suppose it doesn't really matter with faster machines, but I'd love some feedback.

Thanks!

-CS

I am not coding guru but according to my experience the second one (taking custom indicator logic and putting it directly in the EA) is much more better.

 

Can you elaborate?

newdigital:
I am not coding guru but according to my experience the second one (taking custom indicator logic and putting it directly in the EA) is much more better.

Hi ND,

Can you elaborate a bit? Why is it better? Is it faster?

I know that calling through iCustom could potentially give you a different value than what is seen on the indicator in the window, just because it potentially is processed on a different tic...

But, I'd be interested in any more information you can provide for why using it within the EA is better...

Thank you Sir!

Cheers,

CS

 
cubesteak:
Hi ND,

Can you elaborate a bit? Why is it better? Is it faster?

I know that calling through iCustom could potentially give you a different value than what is seen on the indicator in the window, just because it potentially is processed on a different tic...

But, I'd be interested in any more information you can provide for why using it within the EA is better...

Thank you Sir!

Cheers,

CS

I am not coding guru so it is much more better for me because it is easy to backtest (faster) and I do not have any problems with computer memory.

One example. In elite section I tried to create some scalper. I finished 67th modification of 6th version. And got stuck. Because it was too many icustom indicators inside with different timeframes working. I could not backtest this EA. And I realized that I will never finish with the modifications and versions because it is impossible to backtest just to have some opinion how it works.

The other example. I coded some simple EA with many indicators as icustom. The same: impossible to backtest. Then I asked Igorad and he coded ASCTrend indicator, NonLagMA indicator and RSIFilter indicator inside the code. And it is backtesting very easy.

My problem is the following: it is very easy for me to create EA with icustom. But as i am not a coder so difficult to code indicator inside EA without icustom (taking custom indicator logic). Just for me.

 
newdigital:
I am not coding guru so it is much more better for me because it is easy to backtest (faster) and I do not have any problems with computer memory.

One example. In elite section I tried to create some scalper. I finished 67th modification of 6th version. And got stuck. Because it was too many icustom indicators inside with different timeframes working. I could not backtest this EA. And I realized that I will never finish with the modifications and versions because it is impossible to backtest just to have some opinion how it works.

The other example. I coded some simple EA with many indicators as icustom. The same: impossible to backtest. Then I asked Igorad and he coded ASCTrend indicator, NonLagMA indicator and RSIFilter indicator inside the code. And it is backtesting very easy.

My problem is the following: it is very easy for me to create EA with icustom. But as i am not a coder so difficult to code indicator inside EA without icustom (taking custom indicator logic). Just for me.

Ahh... Are you saying that iCustom doesn't work in backtesting, or that it is just that it can get complicated when many are used, and THEN it won't work in backtesting?

Thanks again for your input.

Cheers,

CS

 
cubesteak:
Ahh... Are you saying that iCustom doesn't work in backtesting, or that it is just that it can get complicated when many are used, and THEN it won't work in backtesting?

Thanks again for your input.

Cheers,

CS

Backtesting is working with many icustom. But slowly. And it is nothing with good or bad computer. It is somethign with Metatrader. For example, open 10 charts and attach NonLagMA indicator version 4. And just imagine that EA is using 2 or 5 NonLadMAs with different timeframes as icustom and so on. Difficult to backtest. For trading is ok.

Because when we created EA so we want to know how it works. We are backtesting this EA. Just to see the errors, how many orders per day and so on.

Then we will want to find the good settings. And we are doing optimization. If EA is without icustom so we may finish everything for one day. If many icustom indicators coded - 3, 4 or 7 days optimization (very slowly).

Just imagine: to start optimization last monday and finish today only and to get finally that EA is not profitable. One week was spent for nothing!

The other way to optimize EA is to trade the system manually. Manually using indicators (without EA). During the 2 or 3 months. And then we may use some profitable settings in EA.

But why we are doing optimization? Usually I am doing optimization of the settings back to 2001 for 4 majors. Why? Because market is changing. EURUSD in 2001 and EURUSD in present time is different (it can not be compared). And if we want to find the settings which may be good during the next 1 or 2 years for example so we should do optimization since 2001. And it is impossible sometimes with many icustom indicators coded.

Because there are good and bad time for any EA. Good/bad month and good/bad year as well. So we should know it. And it is very easy to work with EAs without icustom.

Some people said: "There are no bad EAs. There is bad time for them".

 
newdigital:
Backtesting is working with many icustom. But slowly. And it is nothing with good or bad computer. It is somethign with Metatrader. For example, open 10 charts and attach NonLagMA indicator version 4. And just imagine that EA is using 2 or 5 NonLadMAs with different timeframes as icustom and so on. Difficult to backtest. For trading is ok.

Because when we created EA so we want to know how it works. We are backtesting this EA. Just to see the errors, how many orders per day and so on.

Then we will want to find the good settings. And we are doing optimization. If EA is without icustom so we may finish everything for one day. If many icustom indicators coded - 3, 4 or 7 days optimization (very slowly).

Just imagine: to start optimization last monday and finish today only and to get finally that EA is not profitable. One week was spent for nothing!

The other way to optimize EA is to trade the system manually. Manually using indicators (without EA). During the 2 or 3 months. And then we may use some profitable settings in EA.

But why we are doing optimization? Usually I am doing optimization of the settings back to 2001 for 4 majors. Why? Because market is changing. EURUSD in 2001 and EURUSD in present time is different (it can not be compared). And if we want to find the settings which may be good during the next 1 or 2 years for example so we should do optimization since 2001. And it is impossible sometimes with many icustom indicators coded.

Because there are good and bad time for any EA. Good/bad month and good/bad year as well. So we should know it. And it is very easy to work with EAs without icustom.

Some people said: "There are no bad EAs. There is bad time for them".

Your insight is appreciated, as always.. Many thanks...

New comment