AutoGraf Series 4 - MQL features. - page 9
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
about tools 9,10 and 11 (I put a pull down on the order and will sleep, but I will formulate the question :) ):
is the order binding to the time frame? i.e. it visually seems that by placing and binding the pull on M5, for example, the order moves more often than if we change it from M5 to M15 or M30 and then leave this timeframe
(Ok, let the question remain the same, if it is difficult to understand what I want to find out, I will reword it in the morning)
As for symbols 9,10 and 11 (I've put the pull-down on the order and will go to sleep, but I'll nevertheless formulate the question :) ):
is there a binding to the time frame? i.e. if we set and bind the pull to M5, the order moves more often than if we change it from M5 to M15 or M30
(Ok, let the question be kept like that for the time being if it is difficult to understand what I want to find out, I will reformulate it in the morning)
The question is clear. The answer is in two parts.
1. In AutoGraf this question is considered and solved. It would be desirable, of course, to test it.
2. There is a conceptual error in MT that needs to be mentioned. Object coordinates are linked to bars. In general, this is how it should be. But (as far as I understand) something is a bit wrong in the methods of recalculation of coordinates when moving from one TF to another. To understand the problem, build a trend line in M1: left time coordinate - h:01, right - h:59, i.e. within one hour candle. Set the price difference to a few pips (i.e. the slope is weak, almost horizon). And now look how it looks like in H1 ...
In general the phenomenon takes place with any rollover to other TFs. Just in most cases the error is 1 - 2 points, which is unnoticeable, especially if the step of pull-up modification is large, e.g. 10-15 points.
How to deal with this phenomenon?
1. Stretch the lines wider.
2. Try not to pass to remote TFs without necessity.
3) If it is necessary to go far, then disable the active function (AT and AG) for some time. After the review-analysis return to the native TF and switch on the required trading function.
Thanks, I got it, I'll take it into account.
..and the manual may not be too small :)
Thanks, I got it, I'll take it into account.
..and the manual may not be too small :)
No, it's not.
Sergei, another question about the above mentioned tools:
For example, we bind an order by pulling down to an object, a line, it has borders, i.e. the coordinates of the beginning and the end of the line are bound to time and price
I launch the tester, the price reaches the point in time, in which the line ends, but the pulling of the price continues, as the line seems to be infinite, i.e. it has the "ray" property
should this be the case? or maybe the pull down should stop performing its function as the object seems to have ended? by the way this would be quite interesting
Sergei, another question about the above mentioned tools:
For example, we bind an order by pulling down to an object, a line, it has borders, i.e. the coordinates of the beginning and the end of the line are bound to time and price
I launch the tester, the price reaches the point in time, in which the line ends, but the pulling of the price continues, as the line seems to be infinite, i.e. it has the "ray" property
is it supposed to be like that? or maybe the pull down should stop performing its function since the object seems to have ended?
Here.
This is a question for discussion. So far it's been done so that the "sort of" beam. How to make it better - I don't know.
You could make it drag only to the end of object. But then you would have to chase users and explain why it stopped working.
We could leave it as it is now.
What do you prefer? How would it be more logical, better, more intuitive?
And if you drag it BEFORE the edge, what should you do with the tool in this case? Should I remove it? Or bleep the user, that he should stop watching films, it is time to tune up a little? And what if he is asleep?
At the stage of basic work on the program, I simply left this point "to grow up". Most likely, I should change it to "pull only to the visible end of the line", as this is an additional degree of freedom. You can always adjust the beam...
And I'll have to do it soon...
(at this rate, it won't be long before I post the manual...)
Here.
This is a matter for discussion. So far, it's been done in a way that's "kind of" a ray. I don't know how to make it better.
You could make it drag only to the end of the object. But then you would have to chase the users and explain why it stopped working.
We could leave it as it is now.
What do you prefer? How would it be more logical, better, more intuitive?
And if you drag it BEFORE the edge, what should you do with the tool in this case? Should I remove it? Or bleep the user, that he should stop watching films, it is time to tune up a little? And what if he is asleep?
At the stage of basic work on the program, I simply left this point "to grow up". Most likely, I should change it to "pull only to the visible end of the line", as this is an additional degree of freedom. You can always adjust the beam...
And I'll have to do it soon...
(at this rate I won't be posting the manual for a while yet...)
Can we give the user a choice?
Personally I like it better, and it would be more understandable, purely intuitively, if the function stops when there is no object to follow, and if I want it not to stop, then I change line properties and turn on "beam" - voila :)
It is certainly possible to give the user a choice.
Yes. I'll get to it in the next few days. That was the plan. I just wanted to get away from work for a while:)
I'll have to do it.
Give me all your suggestions at once (so as not to chop the dog's tail off one piece at a time:).
Give all your suggestions at once (so as not to chop the dog's tail off one piece at a time:).
:) well, it's a matter of piecing it all together and formulating it intelligently, I think tomorrow :)