Discussion of article "LifeHack for traders: Fast food made of indicators" - page 7

New comment
 
fxsaber:


You're a pretty fast shooter - you passed the test in 8 seconds. Additionally wrapped up in your library, according to the log clipping.

 
Rashid Umarov:

You're a pretty fast shooter - you passed the test in 8 seconds. You wrapped it in your library, judging by the log cutout.


No. Probably a test on artificial ticks with ALL ticks cut out.

 

The article was supposed to be an EA WITHOUT trading, which would simply call indicator values through MQL4/5-style and through the built-in function.

Performance data of each of the variants. How does it affect the result when there are several such indicators (multiple sets of input parameters) in an EA.

This is a little more than an average forum post. The article compares incomparable things and draws some conclusions on this basis.

 
fxsaber:

The article was supposed to be an EA WITHOUT trading, which would simply call indicator values through MQL4/5-style and through the built-in function.

Performance data of each of the variants. How does it affect the result when there are several such indicators (multiple sets of input parameters) in an EA.

This is a little more than an average forum post. The article compares incomparable things and draws some conclusions on this basis.


This is called "going off topic" after being accused of forgery.

 
Rashid Umarov:

You're a pretty fast shooter - you passed the test in 8 seconds. You wrapped it up in your library, according to the log cutout.

I didn't do anything. Just ran it as is. The logs above contain all the data for reproduction. Your result should be exactly the same as mine in terms of profit. And the performance should not differ much.

 

I will check the codes from the article on my computer this weekend. No time for now

PS I ran the standard MACD Sample on USDJPY M30 2017.02.01-2018.01.18 "All ticks" (as in the article) MetaQuotes-Demo.

PPS It turns out that I had non-default input parameters

How does one get within 8 seconds? Especially in 1 second?


2018.01.26 13:14:44.957 Core 1  final balance 9529.53 USD
2018.01.26 13:14:44.957 Core 1  USDJPY,M30: 29801706 ticks, 11837 bars generated. Environment synchronized in 0:00:00.547. 
Test passed in 0:01:09.312 (including ticks preprocessing 0:00:02.484).
2018.01.26 13:14:44.957 Core 1  USDJPY,M30: total time from login to stop testing 0:01:09.859 (including 0:00:00.547 for history data synchronization)
2018.01.26 13:14:44.957 Core 1  829 Mb memory used including 1.88 Mb of history data, 576 Mb of tick data
 
Vladimir Karputov:

This is called "going off topic" after being accused of forgery.

Test log in the studio on the same settings you cited!

 
Vladimir Karputov:

It's called "going off topic" after being accused of forgery.

Where's the forgery? It was a parrot-like repetition of "I have everything working". The words of fxsaber are more credible.

To show that "everything works for you", all you have to do is to make an identical test. Difficult?
 
Vladimir Karputov:

This is called "going off topic" after being accused of forgery.

Vladimir, you are the only one who has gone "off topic" so far.

Bring a normal test Expert Advisor with two variants of the indicator call. Compare its speed with different modes. Now you are testing TWO DIFFERENT Expert Advisors. No, well, then compare your Expert Advisor with some arbitrary Expert Advisor from Kodobaza - both of them have the same financial results - a drain at the spread level.

 
Комбинатор:

Where's the forgery? The topic was diverted by parrot-like repetition of "everything works for me". The words of fxsaber are more credible.

To show that "everything works for you", all you need to do is to make an identical test. Difficult?

Let's test the codes from the article with the stated settings and post the results. Start with yourself. So far, all three of you have brought nothing but "I haven't read it, but I condemn it".

12345678910111213
New comment