MT5 terminal updated today and the "Optimisation" window does not show up during the test - page 13
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
Can you tell me where to download the 1755 build and how to make it not automatically update to this (current) misunderstanding?
1795 seemed fine too.
1755 is fine too, if you need it.
To block updates, close write access to C:\Users\your_name\AppData\Roaming\MetaQuotes\WebInstall\.Ideally, the terminal should consist of one button"take profit".
Every developer, after seeing the results of the optimisation, determines from the first lines whether it makes sense to continue or not. That's why you should allow to see the results before the end of optimization, without interruption.
The "Optimization results" tab should be returned, and the "Refresh table" button could be added at the top of the table.
This would make more sense.
Every developer, after seeing the results of the optimisation, determines from the first lines whether it makes sense to continue or not. That's why you should allow to see the results before the end of optimization, without interruption.
The tab "Optimization results" should be returned, and the "Refresh table" button could be added at the top of the table.
That would make more sense.
+1
Every developer, after seeing the results of the optimisation, determines from the first lines whether it makes sense to continue or not. That's why you should allow to see the results before the end of optimization, without interruption.
The tab "Optimization results" should be returned, and the "Refresh table" button could be added at the top of the table.
That would make more sense.
As rightly pointed out above in branch, even a button does not need to be added, just do not need to forcibly sort the table data during optimization, and the user, as before, can in the table header itself click on the desired column, when it considers it necessary, and the table will be sorted by it respectively, spending precious resources PC user.
But @Renat Fatkhullin appealed to the fact that the human eye can not handle 100 million entries, etc. and there's no point in showing them in the process, they say.
And I want to know in this regard: are there people who make 100 million passes during optimization, or 50 million passes, or at least 10 million passes? and how much time and money do they spend on such optimizations, and most importantly - what (primitive) optimizer should be running so that it could be computed in a fraction of a second and make 10/50/100 million passes in a reasonable amount of time...
As rightly pointed out above in branch, we don't even need to add any button, we just don't need to sort table data during optimization, and user, as before, can click on required column in table header himself, when he considers it necessary, and table will be sorted by it respectively, spending precious resources of user PC.
But @Renat Fatkhullin appealed to the fact that the human eye can not handle 100 million entries, etc. and there's no point in showing them in the process, they say.
And I want to know in this regard: are there people who make 100 million passes during optimization, or 50 million passes, or at least 10 million passes? and how much time and money do they spend on such optimizations, and most importantly - what (primitive) optimizer should be running so that it could be computed in a fraction of a second and make 10/50/100 million passes in a reasonable amount of time...
As rightly pointed out above in the thread, there is not even any button to be added, just no need to force table data to be sorted during optimization, and the user, as before, can click on the required column in the table header himself, when he considers it necessary, and the table will be sorted accordingly, spending precious resources of the user's PC.
But @Renat Fatkhullin appealed to the fact that the human eye cannot handle 100 million records, etc., and there is no point in showing them in the process, they say.
And I want to know in this connection: are there people who make 100 million passes during optimization, or 50 million passes, or at least 10 million passes? and how much time and money do they spend on such optimizations, and most importantly - what (primitive) optimizer should be running in it to be able to calculate in fractions of second and perform 10/50/100 million passes in a reasonable time interval...
So you don't understand what Renat is saying about his needs... all history shows that MQs work that way, do things for themselves and the rest of us just enjoy it. I feel for Renat, he wanted the best, judging from his first posts enthusiastically talked about achievements, he wanted the best, but it turned out... In general, the public could not appreciate good intentions. "Then do something for them", maybe Renat thinks, and does not answer in this thread anymore.
I'd like to say for myself, I'm very happy that MQ continue to work and do a lot to develop their product - that's great. However, sometimes listening to users' opinions would be helpful....As rightly pointed out above in the branch, there is even no need to add any button, just no need to force table data sorting during optimization, and the user, as before, can click on the required column in the table header himself, when he considers it necessary, and the table will be sorted accordingly, spending precious resources of the user's PC.
But @Renat Fatkhullin appealed to the fact that the human eye cannot handle 100 million records, etc. and there is no point in showing them in the process, they say.
And I want to know in this connection: are there people who make 100 million passes during optimization, or 50 million passes, or at least 10 million passes? and how much time and money do they spend for such optimizations, and most importantly - what (primitive) should be running in optimizer so that it could be calculated in a fraction of a second and could do 10/50/100 million passes in a reasonable amount of time...
>15,000 searches are enough. time for 1 day, >20 $ per agent (although after stopping the optimization, more than 70% of the results were null!) - if I immediately saw zero results, I would have stopped the test and found out the reason.
It took me half a year to optimise. Everything in the code is compressed as much as possible for optimization.
1 million, that's 100 times more....