Requests & Ideas - page 320

Mladen Rakic
163289
Mladen Rakic  
rayphua:
In consideration for point 2, i think a vertical line would be better. For point 2, the 3 extra colors would be ok buffer wise?

rayphua

Here is the version with a vertical line that separates the period that is extended into future. Options to configure line are added (including if you wish to see the line n the main window too or just in the sub-window). Try it out : cci_woody_double_2.01.ex4

RWP
537
RWP  
mladen:
rayphua Here is the version with a vertical line that separates the period that is extended into future. Options to configure line are added (including if you wish to see the line n the main window too or just in the sub-window). Try it out : cci_woody_double_2.01.ex4

Mladen, tested it. Works good on current timeframe but viewing longer timeframes on shorter timeframe, the line should be drawn at where the current longer timeframe ends. For example, viewing 1 day indicator on 4 hour chart, line is now drawn on current bar, instead it should be drawn on the bar where a new day ends.

Mladen Rakic
163289
Mladen Rakic  
rayphua:
Mladen, tested it. Works good on current timeframe but viewing longer timeframes on shorter timeframe, the line should be drawn at where the current longer timeframe ends. For example, viewing 1 day indicator on 4 hour chart, line is now drawn on current bar, instead it should be drawn on the bar where a new day ends.

rayphua

Try out this version : cci_woody_double_2.02.ex4

RWP
537
RWP  
mladen:
rayphua Try out this version : cci_woody_double_2.02.ex4

Tried it. It's odd. Settings are made for line thickness 1, and style 0, for all tf.

1hr looks right.

4hr shows dotted line

1day doesn't show.

1 week doesn't show.

Mladen Rakic
163289
Mladen Rakic  
rayphua:
Tried it. It's odd. Settings are made for line thickness 1, and style 0, for all tf.

1hr looks right.

4hr shows dotted line

1day doesn't show.

1 week doesn't show.

Change the UniqueID field for each instance

If the LineStyle is anything but 0, metatrader does not allow width settings (you have to set the line style to 0 in order to be able to change the width of the line)

RWP
537
RWP  
mladen:
Change the UniqueID field for each instance If the LineStyle is anything but 0, metatrader does not allow width settings (you have to set the line style to 0 in order to be able to change the width of the line)

Im aware about the width/thickness settings restriction on metatrader.

still does not work even when i use different instances. the earlier version worked as it showed all lines on different timeframes at the same time, the issue the earlier version had was that it drew lines on the same bar for all timeframes.

Mladen Rakic
163289
Mladen Rakic  
rayphua:
Im aware about the width/thickness settings restriction on metatrader. still does not work even when i use different instances. the earlier version worked as it showed all lines on different timeframes at the same time, the issue the earlier version had was that it drew lines on the same bar for all timeframes.

rayphua

Here is an example with 3 instances on the same chart :

1st - current time frame, "CCI Woody double:" for UniqueID

2nd - 1 hour, "CCI Woody double 2 :" for UniqueID

3rd - 15 minutes, "CCI Woody double 3 :" for UniqueID, LineStyle set to 0, LineWidth set to 2

Files:
example.gif 85 kb
RWP
537
RWP  
mladen:
rayphua Here is an example with 3 instances on the same chart :
1st - current time frame, "CCI Woody double:" for UniqueID

2nd - 1 hour, "CCI Woody double 2 :" for UniqueID

3rd - 15 minutes, "CCI Woody double 3 :" for UniqueID, LineStyle set to 0, LineWidth set to 2

Thanks Mladen, will sort that out.

On a seperate note, I would like your confirmation regarding the logic. To reconfirm, the next bar's close price is calculated as the present bar's current price, and the next bar's high and low price is also calculated as the present bar's current price. Would that be how the logic was coded? The reason I'm asking is because I've seen cases where although the high, low, and close price of current bar did not change and when the next bar appears with the open price unchanged from the earlier bar's close price, the actual lines that form did not match the earlier bar's predicted lines. Are you able to check?

Mladen Rakic
163289
Mladen Rakic  
rayphua:
Thanks Mladen, will sort that out. On a seperate note, I would like your confirmation regarding the logic. To reconfirm, the next bar's close price is calculated as the present bar's current price, and the next bar's high and low price is also calculated as the present bar's current price. Would that be how the logic was coded? The reason I'm asking is because I've seen cases where although the high, low, and close price of current bar did not change and when the next bar appears with the open price unchanged from the earlier bar's close price, the actual lines that form did not match the earlier bar's predicted lines. Are you able to check?

rayphua

CCI uses only one price for calculation. So, the price you chose is used for that calculation the way you described (not 3 prices - one price of choice). If it is the median, typical or weighted price, the prices that are relevant for forming those prices are going to be used in the "basic" price calculation and then that price is going to be used. You can check that - compare the value of the 1 bar (not the 0th bar) to current cci with same settings and you shall see tat the values are the same. Same price used for that bar calculation is used for the "future" bar calculation too (as per your request)

Also, you can not compare a state when 2 same prices are taking part in a process of calculation or when that price takes part only once - do not forgoet that the request was that the current price is used for future bar calculation too. Everything is just fine with the calculation

William Snyder
9493
William Snyder  

Qqe Cfb Adaptive Dynamic Zones tape from here: https://www.mql5.com/en/forum/179807/page145 updated to be compatible with new mt4 builds. Also in that version the cfb adaption wasn't adapting at every bar, which should be corrected in this version.