MetaTrader 5 Strategy Tester: bugs, bugs, suggestions for improvement - page 73
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
a new twist on all character mode:
made 31 passes (by log too) in table only 24 rows.
31 - new ones stopped being added on their own
robot did not recompile.
ADDED: sorted it out - there's an array out of range by several characters. didn't notice before that such passes were skipped. no errors on single pass, test goes through to the end...
Are they used to convert in profit or margin into deposit currency (the tester adds them automatically when opening a position)?
no, they are exotics like SGDNOK, PLNTRY
No, there are exotics like SGDNOK, PLNTRY
And what are they optimised for? What is in their specification?
If "count profit in pips", do additional symbols appear?
An optimiser differs from a single one in that there is no log for every fart. It is likely that the logging creates a large proportion of the braking.
In Terminal one EA from a basket of 20 EAs works fine.
Which ones are being optimised? What is in their specification?
If "count profit in pips", do extra characters appear?
stopped playing (didn't reboot! computer slept in hibernation mode)... new day, new jokes: array out of range on group pass is missing on single pass... Will have to sort it out, see how all these jokes play out.
And so the usual symbols, profit calculation method - FX
ADDED:
Did single tests on USDRUB, noticed 3 new symbols:
as you can see they have CHF in common, but USDRUB and
not noticed before: in the specification to the symbol:
and the tester does not hesitate to open at 0:00, i.e. on a quote but not a trade bar
add an appropriate set of values (without names) of input parameters?
An interesting feature of genetics. In the depths of the algorithm, I replaced multiplication by one with an optimisation factor, whose optimisation range includes the same one.
When I enabled the optimization of this parameter in the genetics, I couldn't even get close to the result shown by the genetics before entering the parameter.
Do I understand correctly that in such a situation, introducing a new parameter adds so many new local extrema that there is no way to reach the "old" maximum? I.e., this indicates that the parameter introduces noises, rather than introduces something clear.
Is it correct to consider the new input parameter as rubbish?