Errors, bugs, questions - page 26
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I understand there has been an upgrade to the 288 build. Could you please clarify what build you had before the update?
And give more details: OS, presence of UAC, etc.
Windows XP Pro. I couldn't trace the build, but I was still installing a full distribution of one of the beta versions. The issue was resolved by reinstalling from the site over the existing one. All servers and accounts are fixed. Everything is fine now.
1. Regarding OCO orders - the potential opportunity is built into the platform - the rest is a matter of time.
Developers, regarding application #18098 - Is it not possible to catch transfers by a certain type (known in advance)? If not, then why really complicate your life...
PS
I can't understand the difference between optimization results for BARs and LIGHTS...
Click on the link (highlighted in blue), where do you go? Not where it says what the "Optimisation criterion" is.
Clicking on this link takes you to the description of the tester settings, where you select the optimization criterion (it briefly states what it is and provides a link to the full description). I will put the link immediately to the full description.
Clicking on this link takes you to the description of the tester settings, where you select the optimization criterion (it briefly states what it is and provides a link to the full description). The link will take you straight to the full description.
Developers, regarding application #18098 - Is it not possible to catch transfers by a certain type (known in advance)? If not, then why really complicate your life...
PS
I can't understand for the life of me the difference between optimization results by BARs and LIGHTs...
And you do not turn off your head. Use for optimization what you can. And do not use BARs and Candlesticks.
All enumerations are equal (syntactically and semantically). You cannot turn off the ability to optimize for other enumerations because of one enumeration.
And you keep your head up. Use what enumeration you can for optimisation. And by bars and candlesticks, don't use it.
All enumerations are equal (syntactically and semantically). You cannot turn off the ability to optimize for other enumerations because of one enumeration.
So I was wondering if it's possible to Catch a certain enumeration at the level of the tester itself...
Purely theoretical. How do you envisage catching a certain enumeration? Something to add to the syntax?
Like enum nonoptimizable?
Purely theoretical. How do you imagine catching a certain enumeration? Something to add to the syntax?
Like enum nonoptimizable?
Well, I don't know how the tester catches parameters with type Color, maybe others. The idea was just to catch parameters of ENUM_CHART_MODE type (which is actually an internal enumeration of the language).
All other enumerators may live in peace...
PS
Forget about it, just forget about it (it doesn't bother me personally), but if we catch it (for some reason) in conjunction with other parameters, such as lot size, you can guess how many times the number of combinations will increase (and the optimized parameters in the test may be more than two)...
Well, I don't know how the tester catches parameters with Color type, probably others. Just the idea was to catch parameters with type ENUM_CHART_MODE (which is essentially an internal language enumeration).
It is very simple. There is such a type color. The string type is not optimized either.
Among "internal" enumerations of the language there are such interesting enumerations as ENUM_TIMEFRAMES, ENUM_APPLIED_PRICE, ENUM_MA_METHOD that are subject to optimization. The compiler makes no distinction between "internal" enumerations and custom enumerations - their descriptions are stored in the same place.