Indicators: SolarWinds
Just for information, maybe you are not aware that this is a renamed Fisher Transform, which is ungodly redrawn in MT4, and not, as you write, "A typical and quite smooth oscillator". One resource already has a whole collection of such masterpieces. By the way, your version of Fisher Transform for MT5 also shows some nonsense.
Frankly speaking, it is even a bit surprising when a person, who seems to know a lot about programming, talks such nonsense like the latest gossip girl! I looked at the code and it is redrawn because of the programmer's illiteracy! I, of course, fixed this error! You at least by the corner of your eye bother to look at the code before you talk such nonsense! Naturally, that the source variant is written crookedly! But this is not a complaint to me! By the way, many of your works in MQL4 are not better in terms of quality. Nobody makes any claims to you about it! I am just converting the MQL4 codebase, and I'm not interested in what a particular indicator looks like - dad, mum or neighbour - so don't drink boiling water!
As for my version of the Fisher indicator, it works like clockwork, and anyone can check it in the strategy tester with visualisation! You can call an independent expert to check the "crystal honesty" of your statements - he will tell you the same thing!!!!. So why do you need to make such a fuss? And if you have any claims to the Fisher indicator, post them on the page devoted to it, not in the alley!
What other claims?
You should remove logs from your own eyes before looking for specks in other people's eyes! Most of your indicators are, to put it mildly, woefully suboptimal! And you bravely carry this tradition from MQL4 to MQL5. Why doesn't it irritate me in any way? But this is also purely for information!
"Like clockwork," you say:
Look at the figure - in the 1st subwindow the code from the Russian base, in the 2nd subwindow - from the English base.
A code fragment with an error in the Russian base:
double res=(MaxH-MinL)-0.5; if(res) Value=0.5*2.0 *((price-MinL)/res)+0.5*Value; else Value=0.0;
and without an error, like Euler's, in the English one:
Value=0.5*2.0 *((price-MinL)/(MaxH-MinL)-0.5)+0.5*Value;
I am honoured and praised that you have corrected something that should not be corrected at all, but simply thrown out as rubbish. And if you have corrected it, call it by its real name - FisherTransform.
Yes, and do you know how many people have got into money, buying this miracle from charlatans under different names or trading on it?
I would like to ask - why do you react to constructive criticism in such a way, switching to personalities? And what does my qualification in programming have to do with it? I know very well that I am not an ace in this business and I do not show off anywhere like some people.
Besides, I ask you not to convert my indicators anymore, as they are old versions of 6-7 years ago.
"Like clockwork," you say:
Look at the figure - in the 1st subwindow the code from the Russian base, in the 2nd subwindow - from the English base.
A code fragment with an error in the Russian base:
and without an error, like Euler's, in the English one:
I am honoured and praised that you have corrected something that should not be corrected at all, but simply thrown out as rubbish. And if you have corrected it, call it by its real name - FisherTransform.
Yes, and do you know how many people have got into money, buying this miracle from charlatans under different names or trading on it?
I would like to ask - why do you react to constructive criticism in such a way, switching to personalities? And what does my qualification in programming have to do with it? I know very well that I am not an ace in this business and I do not show off anywhere like some people.
Besides, I ask you not to convert my indicators anymore, as they are old versions of 6-7 years ago.
Sir! When I get constructive comments about errors, I just correct them! Including when you make them in a normal form. For example, there was such a situation with the MAMA indicator. You made a remark, I corrected the error. What misunderstandings were there? In this situation, you are looking for an excuse to discredit me. The reaction to such behaviour is quite adequate. It's perfectly normal.
I am absolutely not interested in who and what were the indicators in the MQL4 codebase in my previous life. I was offered to convert the codebase, I do it, but I am not responsible for these codes! If you are not satisfied with something - submit your claims to the one who put them there and to the forum administration! Delete and change them in the codebase in the original source, if you are such a fighter for justice. What do I have to do with it? I do not owe you anything! The same applies to your indicators lying there too. They're not really yours anymore!
I was asked to convert the codebase, I do so, but I have no responsibility for those codes!
And what happens to the one who disagrees.
he'll be KINGKONG.
and it'll be kingkong versus gozilla.)
TheXpert:
Кто еще не согласен с этим утверждением? )
And what responsibility can there be for those codes that someone else put in, and everyone was silent, but now suddenly they are outraged? You can turn to the one who put them in!
...Who put it there is the one to turn to!
And what responsibility can there be for those codes that someone else put in and everyone was silent, but now they suddenly start to cackle indignantly?
Firstly, not now, but all the time periodically.
Secondly, you did. So there's no excuse.
Since you fill the base, you are responsible for the content and for errors. You by the way money for this get.
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
You agree to website policy and terms of use
SolarWinds:
A typical and sufficiently smooth oscillator which can apply all oscillator analytical instruments
Fig.1 The SolarWinds indicator
Author: Nikolay Kositsin