Wishes for MT5 - page 16

[Slava]

defoille писал(а) # :
Cltkfkb would be a thick dotted line, if you don't mind. Thank you.

A thick dotted line would be difficult. Since it turns out to be a non-standard drawing. By default (on a Windows system) linedrawing styles are applied to lines of thickness 0 and 1.

[IGGL]

About the order system and heaven for scalpers and others

Dear developers,

It seems to me that the order system in MT5 is complicated on one hand and limited on the other. I was not very excited about the order management in MT4, but I was not confused by limitations and other problems.

I will not be surprised if this system causes or has caused criticism from amateurs (and not only them) of hedging on one pair.

Here is an example, in my opinion I will give you an example of a simpler and more flexible system implemented in a platform, which is used also by the largest forex broker in the world (about 20% of the market) and yours truly - the smallest trader.) Of course MT4 is also offered, but under the table ;-)

Simple order system

1) A Buy/Sell market order (during the creation process, a Limit/Stop order may be assigned immediately, if the FIFO rule does not apply in the broker's country).

A market order can be created in one click with preset Limit/Stop indents and volume (paradise for scalpers and not only). Upon execution of a Limit/Stop order, the order can be moved with the mouse.

2) A Buy/Sell pending order (Enter order), which can also be supplied with Limit/Stop orders. This is executed when the price is reached.

If desired, pending orders can be combined into an OCO (One-Cancels-the-Other) group. I.e. one order from the group, when executed, automatically cancels the other members of the group.

ALL!!! A primitive and very flexible system - two types of Buy/Sell orders + OCO (Limit/Stop, in its way, also OCO orders).

I forgot to mention that when we move the cursor over the order, the linked orders are highlighted, which is a very useful feature.

The platform in which this is used supports at least three variants of this system, including to satisfy the laws of different countries. For example, in the US hedging is prohibited and there is a FIFO rule for closing orders.

I like most of all the variant where when an order is executed, the "smart" program either creates a new order or modifies the old one for the corresponding pair, depending on Limit/Stop indices. Automatic MT4/MT5 execution in one package!

Unfortunately there is nothing like this in MT4 and only partially implemented in MT5 (drag and drop with the mouse).

It is disappointing that charts cannot be simply moved within the window in any direction and zoom any axis by moving the mouse.

I am preparing to open a PAM account with Alpari but my mood is disturbed by the idea of dealing with MT5 system without OCO orders.

Perhaps I'm panicking in vain...

I wonder if I am the only one or if everybody is satisfied with the order system and the order execution rules.

Best wishes to all!

[[Deleted]]

IGGL писал(а) # :
I wonder if I am the only one or if everyone is happy with the order system and the rules of order execution.

The topic was raised long before the advent of MT5, particularly about OCO orders.

[x572intraday]

I am very grateful to you for your work and wish you further development and prosperity!
Now for some constructive criticism...

1. Vital, well, just a pitchfork!! Add Andrews' alternative pitchfork to the standard set of graphic objects - the ones he himself wanted (KROUFR: http://kroufr.ru/content/view/682/124/1/6/ ). Either make one more, independent, or customize the existing ones. Call them at least a Santa Claus rake, but please do it, because they have nothing to do with exotics or tools with dubious effectiveness! According to my observations, this is just a godsend for a stock speculator! All this goodness lies quietly on the KROUFR website in the public domain, and I have met worse methods, but on a paid basis. So, if the MT product is serious and was created not to fool the public and breed moose, but for effective TA and profitable trading, then this tool is simply irreplaceable! I don’t want to say anything bad about the available TA tools - they help a lot with a competent approach to them, however, after getting acquainted with the above technique, I felt a striking superiority over the classic Fibonacci levels and other popular TA tools. In addition, such forks look clearly more versatile than the classics. For example, at least on some crosses, Fibo just frankly misses, and sometimes it fails on non-crosses, especially if you refrain from using additional indicators confirming the signals.

The main thing that the new forks should be able to do is to provide the user with the ability to manually add levels as much as they want (although in principle it can be limited to 5-7) and manually tighten them. This is the most important and fundamental wish here. Numerically pre-set levels through the settings window of a graphical object are evil. Firstly, the market does not wait - we need responsiveness and the concept of one-click at the graphical level (WYSIWYG), and the numerical adjustment window will remain for more specific and infrequent tasks; secondly, with the help of natural number fitting, it is generally very difficult to position the key touch points of an object with some kind of extremum on the chart (without a calculator, the Pythagorean theorem, and other crap far from trading) - you will have to struggle with undershoot / overshoot for a long time.
Then... The new pitchfork should inherit something from the already existing pitchfork, something from the Fibonacci channel, something from the Equidistant channel. If in the existing Andrews pitchfork only the right, left and bottom points are magnetized, then in the new ones the cross point must also be controlled. In general, the user must select the maximum and minimum on the chart, draw a line (axis), to the left of which there will appear n levels parallel to it and manually magnetized at the desired extrema (one line - one magnetic point - one extremum), and to the right of the axis should be mirrored the same levels, but not having their own ability to be pulled up (all right parallel lines are adjusted only by adjusting the left lines based on touching the historically formed extremums to the left of the axis). This is the point.

I tried on my own to construct, by combining simpler graphical tools , similar pitchforks that would be easily and synchronously controlled, but in vain. If in MT4 it was possible to temporarily "make friends" the ends of two Trendlines and drag them with the mouse at the same time (they were somehow intelligently glued together), then in MT5 I could not do this, and then what's the point of talking about it if it only applies to the ends of the Trendline, but with the ends of the Andrews pitchfork, it never worked anywhere? For this reason, I had no choice but to rush into MQL and see what could be done for this. But I don't know MQL, and when I found the MT5 pitchfork source code and then, just to be sure, I poked my head into the MQL5 documentation on CreateObject(), I found out with horror that only three input key points can be set. I want more dots and lines! You want flexibility. I may not have understood the language's capabilities to the minimum necessary, but if I'm right, then things are really bad. What kind of crab, one wonders, should I squat in order to make a fairly simple and popular construction? Moreover, both by combining built-in tools, and by writing an individual non-standard graphic object. Do I want something complicated? By the way! Maybe it's worth doing auto-gluing of the ends of different Trendlines lying on the same extremum in MT5? As well as magnetic ends and other graphic objects.
Fibonacci levels are used in various graphical objects and, of course, I have my great ardent respect for him, however, personally, I don’t like it when rigidly predefined levels are imposed on me, without providing an alternative or providing an alternative in such an unusable form that my hands fall down to kill time for drawing. By and large, computer software, by its very first purpose and definition, is designed to provide both
as many automated or fully automatic means as possible, and thereby relieve the user and speed up the achievement of results, otherwise the user will feel like a long and tedious pencil draftsman on paper at the end of the century before last. All the desire to make money by trading will simply disappear from a person as soon as he appears. The strategy tester, indicators, and so on - all this is great and wonderful, but what did the graphic objects do wrong, that they were left without attention?

2. Select File->Login from the menu, we have the ability to manually change to the desired login, password, account, server and log in where we should. But what for in the Navigator window, when you click on one or another account (for multi-accounts in the same DC), the confirmation window pops up? If there is a list of accounts that already store predefined logins and passwords in accordance with each account, then it is enough to click on the required account once and relogin from one account to another. If the user wants to change something or select other connection parameters, let him calmly climb into File-> Login and somersault there even until the Second Coming. Confirmations are not needed in the Navigator, they are only annoying.

3. Deferrals. The dream of any trader (not just scalpers) for an intuitive, obvious, user-friendly, one-click WYSIWYG trading is to set with a predetermined lot and change market entry levels, SL and TP with one click, and delete with the Del key. I would like to drag and drop without the appearance of a window with parameters for changing and confirming. If you need to change something - double click on the level with immersion in the numbers of the pending window. If the Internet is full of such scripts, then the lack of such simple and intuitively expected features in the standard AS IS distribution kit, and even by default, is alarming. In addition, third-party ready-made scripts for MT4 are complex, with a bunch of "superfluous", but you need only the most necessary and simple - drag-and-drop with the mouse of pending levels, SL, TP.

To all this I would like to add a fundamental remark. These deferreds must remain on the client side and not go beyond the local computer. Modify and delete there. (When triggered - yes, here the request should already be sent to the dealer on the server.) In addition, such pending positions should not be marked anywhere at all, as if they never existed (until they turn into real positions in case of triggering) - this is for especially scrupulous, who do not like it when deleted orders mess up the statement. Is wanting something like this really wanting something illegal?! Yes, and if you have to produce, and then delete unnecessary postponers in droves, the statement is tritely littered and readability suffers. Isn't this at least a reason to take into account these wishes? It is quite acceptable to litter "ugly" records in the statement only when nothing could be done. And if you are sitting at the computer and can control the situation, remove orders that have lost their relevance from the list of pending orders, then it is quite logical to provide the user with such an opportunity. It is clear that such pending orders are unreliable, because ideologically, according to their purpose, they should work at the moment the price hits immediately, as if the trader opened a position manually, in real time - and this is fraught with requotes during manual dealing or auto-dealing with a large load of queues of requests to open client trades, but this is already a problem for the client-trayer, his conscious choice, and everything else is not a little more unreliable than periodically running into requotes during normal - manual - trading.

It also seems very useful to be able to modify the volume previously assigned to a pending agent, both in the classical case, with sending corrective data to the server, and in the variant with client-only pending agents, and even more so. And then, in particular, due to an incorrectly set volume, you have to stupidly delete the entire order and assign a completely new one, although technically it would be quite possible to add the ability to change only the volume in the old pending order.

4. Rejection of position hedging - is this the first step towards the Americanization of any other national mentality? Political, legal, economic measures from above? The long arm of the Masons? Mind manipulation from distant Sirius? Voice from above? Divine revelation? How many votes against should accumulate so that MT is again developed for traders, and not the developers themselves? You can't even call it idle curiosity... This is already a real problem... The cry of the soul and mind.

5. When we build mega-drawings on a solid TF scale, then a natural desire later is to correct the points of contact of a graphic object with minima / maxima as accurately as possible. And here begins a long and tedious manual interpolation to M1 with actual touch points of extrema chronically escaping from the user. It turns out, as in a well-known joke: while a trader was studying the situation on the market, the situation changed. To be honest, these catch-ups are more exhausting than trading itself and discourage not only TA, but trading in general. No one claims that being a successful trader is easy. But why complicate the already stressful life of a trader by providing him with imperfect technical tools? Obviously, what I propose is an auto- interpolation invisible to the user from any current TF greater than M1 to M1 itself with the most accurate intelligent auto-positioning of the magnetized ends of graphic objects. Of course, at too distant historical extremes, most likely, it will be necessary to download time segments-matryoshkas from the server up to the smallest tick or the minimum possible bar for a given DC. But this is also important, as it significantly unloads the user and speeds up the TA process. The user must trust and trust the technical means, and not feel that he is doing something at his own peril and risk, because nothing else is provided. The magnetization should be adjusted by successive interpolation reduction of the TF and with the smart calculation of the only and obvious extremum for the user based on Fractals or something else, which is superior, if not in positioning accuracy, then at least in the speed of finding the only true nearest extremum. To find out the exact date and time (perhaps the price level will also be specified on small timeframes and will need auto-correction), we position ourselves at the extremum of the current timeframe by autosearch, remember, then go to the nearest younger timeframe, repeat the procedure and so on until the smallest timeframe. Auto-correct the touch point on the chart to the final version. We do the same for all touch points of this graphical object.

6. About manual adjustment of touch points of graphic objects through TF interpolation. When moving from a larger TF to a smaller one, the desired point occasionally, according to an unidentified pattern, sometimes runs away from the screen even when auto scrolling is turned off! Where does it fit? There is, however, one iron regularity: the lack of historical data on the client, because of which the point abruptly appears to the left of the screen and requires the missing history to be downloaded. But here everything is clear regarding the reason for running away, but there are also incomprehensible reasons for running away, which can be reproduced, albeit by accident, but very often by any user... If there is no auto-correction yet, let there be at least on-screen auto -centering with manual adjustment. For heaven's sake, make the interface usable! Auto- centering of the touch point of a graphical object near the nearest extremum of obvious interest when the TF changes! It's time to put an end to the old growing pains once and for all. The new army is coming...

... But auto -correction is, of course, better.

I won’t say now (because it was a long time ago and there is very little experience in graphic plots there), how things are with this runaway of points in other trading platforms, but if things are no better there, this should not be an argument for you leave it all uncombed. Why be like the bad and compete with analogues when you need to be the first? You are already leaders for me, even if there are objectively more sophisticated platforms. If you do not spoil your long-term creation, then I do not plan to switch to other platforms. Now I can definitely say that MT has a psychologically more pleasant GUI response, despite network delays, requotes, etc. troubles. Previously, I could not say this, since there was nothing to compare with, but then I had a chance to trade on other softins and I understood everything. I'm not even talking so much about the response tied to the reaction of the Web itself, but about the GUI itself. Even on a modern PC, other platforms are already groaning and tossing and turning from side to side, while you call up some window with settings or something like that, but in MT everything is called up quite clearly and quickly.

7. Episodic incessant surges into negative balance values when a stop out occurs, especially in case of strong trends/gaps. How long??!

When, finally, negative balances will be nipped in the bud once and for all?! Whether this is a problem with MT-software, I'm not sure, but in the experience of using other trading platforms, I have never encountered this. I talked with the developers, asked them to fix it - they said that everything had been taken into account on their part for a long time. To my surprise, why, they say, going into a negative balance still occurs with enviable constancy at all DCs in which I am a client, they answered that such questions should be addressed exclusively to DCs themselves and asked them to eliminate the causes and consequences. Some kind of devilry, it looks like bureaucratic kicking at various authorities in the stagnant times of developed socialism. For the time being, I have cent accounts, so in my case, banging my head against the door of each DC and begging for a reset to zero is, in my opinion, especially humiliating, and also inefficient (priority, as a rule, is given to solid classic accounts - there efficiency). Sometimes they don’t, they don’t, and they will drop it, and quite quickly, but this is a rarity, an event downright. To reset, they eventually reset, but each time manually. And taking into account the fact that I work on cent accounts, I myself can make up for minor disadvantages - these are mere pennies. But according to the Hamburg account, eat your copper by the leg, comrades, this is a matter of principle and an entirely technical question! And what about the manual fuss and even each individual DC? Some kind of nonsense, I can’t believe my eyes, how such a Sabantuy has not yet been eradicated in such a serious and responsible matter as dealing services! I guess that the balance can be upset not so much due to the fact that some DCs could set up a crooked reaction to the price reaching the stop out level, but due to objective factors (network delays, sharp market jerks, which the network reaction is late, pseudo-mystical slippages, etc.), but "the problems of the sheriff's Indians should not worry", but a reasonable, non-capricious and generally not invented by me desire - the desire of the client - is the law! It remains to express the feeling of deepest regret that, in fact, in our midst everything turns out to be much worse. If we are to be tedious and find fault to the end, then, in fairness and fairness, I must not reset the negative balance, namely, to reimburse the due percentage of the lost deposit - the same balance in accordance with the stop out percentage level prescribed in the regulations of one or another DC, but no one does this at all. But what can I say ... - even when the balance remains positive when a stop out occurs, I constantly see strange numbers in the statement: let's say that on the website of this DC for a stop out level, 7% is prescribed, but it fails even at significantly higher, and smaller values, although this probably depends on the leverage and the traded lot, especially when they are extremely maximum. But the client is not to blame for anything, he just trustingly brings any of his money to the DC and innocently hopes that everything will come true exactly according to local regulations, and not anyhow. To dispute every little thing, every claim through KROUFR is not enough time and effort, and it is unlikely that they will bother with such trifles.

8. Planimetric mysticism with TA in MT5. Literally: built a graphical mega-object (the whole thing does not fit on the screen) - adjusted all touch points as accurately as possible on M1 - turned away for a second, did not touch anything - returned to the monitor - to be sure, once again checked on M1 the accuracy of fit of all off-screen touch points to extrema, running the graph with the mouse wheel to the desired points, I saw small shifts from extremums! That is, after adjusting the last of the three magnetic points and checking the first two, they persistently jump off. What is it called? Did you run away yourself? That is, I didn’t even switch between TFs, I stayed on M1 all the time! On some days and with some extremes, this happened, with others - not. Therefore, I cannot name the sequence of actions for reproduction in your laboratory: it is the most common, no features were noticed. I'll make a reservation right away that this does not apply to objects that have points, by pulling which the user does not distort the object, but simply shifts it. For example, if Andrews pitchfork is dragged by the center of the cross and put this center on the extremum, thinking that he has fitted this point to the chart and magnetized to the extremum, then the object will not be distorted, but will move all together with its other points that the user so diligently adjusted under other extremes a little earlier. Here everything is clear and clear that it is wrong to do this, since the cross is not magnetized. But I'm talking about the rebound of those points that should not run away if they are already magnetized for sure! In a word, mysticism. Sometimes it “self-heals” after a couple of repeated adjustments, that is, with my perseverance, I defeat them. Hence the conclusion: there are no special "enchanted" zones on the chart, on which a mysterious dismount occurs ironically and is not treated. Even these odd patches can be subdued with some tenacity.

9. And again mysticism. Appears without a visible pattern, from case to case. In my opinion, MT5 also sins with this, but I won’t say for sure now and I can’t check it, because I don’t know the exact way to reproduce it, but this cant occurs regularly in MT4. I build a channel by three points: I click on the selected minimum, drag it to the maximum, and release it. I also adjust the parallel line - under the third extremum, which is located on the left side of those two. If necessary, I adjust all touch points to extremums until they are exactly positioned on TF M1. Then I hook the mouse to the middle of the main line (there is just a middle point and two on either side of it), move the channel to the right, release it. Automagnetization in this case does not occur, manual adjustment, of course, also. I don’t jump on TFs, everything remains as it was. To be precise, I shift the channel to the right exactly by its width, as a result of which its left border turns out to be in place of the right one, and the right one, respectively, turns out to be to the right of the previous location also exactly by the width of the channel. But here I am perplexedly discovering that the parallelism is broken! The left border of the channel, which now occupies the place of the right one, passes either near that minimum and maximum, or touches only one of them, but misses the other somewhere nearby. For some reason, I dismissed the idea that this channel itself is not very parallel. There remains a hypothesis that after the drag-and-drop the channel fell on the chart a little "bucking" imperceptibly to the eye and took a slightly different shape, as if the user himself had pulled one of the edges of the channel in order to deform. Maybe such self-distortions occur because there are missing zero bars in MT4, on which the channel lies when dropped onto the chart?

10. It should be possible to scroll the chart into the future! This is especially important for M1 as for the most accurate TF. How can the user set accurate alerts on upcoming TimeZone levels in advance, if he does not see these levels, which are significantly distant into the future (to the right of the screen), on the most accurate timeframe M1, and large timeframes are inaccurate, godlessly distorting all constructions that are accurate for M1, and therefore it just doesn't make sense to set alerts on these levels on other TFs than M1?! Sometimes one gets the feeling that MT users, if ever, win, either by accident or by using an extremely small set of really accurate and reliable TA tools, if such are possible at all, and here, again, on a case-by-case basis.

11. Perhaps it makes sense to equip the platform with the option to manually enable/disable ultra-fast scrolling of the chart with the mouse wheel on small TFs like M1, M5, M15 , since getting to the desired time mark on the chart at normal speed can be very long and tiring, and to manipulate jumps on various TFs is still fraught with the slipping of the desired historical segment and the same banal psychological irritation over such trifles.

12. All this 9-year-old lame planimetry of yours ...

Speaking frankly and in general, without touching on specifics, then many, if not all, planimetric plots on the chart lie on TFs > M1, and you are well aware of this, but you continue to shoe and dress up an old sick horse. But the horse does not actually become healthier, and in my personal opinion, it is at great risk of being buried under an increasing pile of beautiful indicators, objects and other convenient means that one day will paralyze its entire diseased body with its weight. I generally keep quiet about galloping TimeZones levels when changing timeframes - this is the simplest, most obvious and significant observation. It is urgent to take action, because to force users to dutifully get used to the bad is to doom them forever to do you know what and you know with whom. Today, even the MT5 platform is not only analytically unusable, but even harmful. It is dangerous to trust distortions, especially if you are not aware of them. So far, only trading itself functions without fundamental complaints, but you perfectly understand that for pure trading it is enough to write a script in Perl, send directives to the server, listen to responses, and even, if possible, automate something from this. Ambitious MetaQuotes claims no more and no less - for a full-fledged graphic-analytical software and trading environment with the ability to automate processes. So you need to match. They called themselves a load - Carthage must be destroyed! If there were no opportunities for TA in the software, there would be no trial, but since so much effort and time have been spent, so many opportunities have been developed and laid down, but they lie, what's the point of denying it and leaving it as it is? This would be equated to disavowing one's own ambitions, recognizing non-competitiveness in terms of TA and, as a result, a reduction in the audience. I don’t even know what is more terrible for you: either endlessly running from grateful, but demanding users with inevitably growing requests, or doomedly heroically screwing the screws for the benefit of the restless public all your life. Or make the product commercial and wait for new adventures on your head (the more paid, the more responsible).

If you say that I want too much and, moreover, at once, and that I need software tailored for me personally, then these are all excuses. I will tell you not so much as a user / consumer of someone else's product, but as a developer, that my bar for the quality and convenience of the final product is high and this is a common thing for me, the norm. Sometimes it is easier not to release a product at all until it is completely licked than to release and accompany a beta under the guise of a full-fledged release. Then sit and listen to the grateful audience about what needs to be screwed here and corrected here, and you already wrote it all out yourself in TO DO and implement it slowly. Well, the fact that the 21st century is already in full swing is generally ridiculous to remind. It is necessary to correspond not personally to me with my requests and wishes, but to the spirit of our time. And then the requests and needs of users will only grow and become more complex. You can't get away from this.

By the way, I personally want to rebuild all TA graphics with maximum accuracy for one simple reason. Let them say that there is noise in the market (on ticks and small timeframes) and it is unreliable and disorderly for extracting serious earnings with low risk, and therefore ultra-precise - up to M1 - constructions and adjustments are unprincipled. Many will say that this is a controversial issue and that it is still possible to work profitably on noise. On the other hand, it is known that the market always and accurately works out the key levels, and therefore, even if the price has not reached the expected level immediately and even just a little bit, it will definitely work it out in full soon. And this is not at all about the fact that, they say, "yes, someday the market will certainly return and will work out to the very tonsils what it did not have time 50 years ago!" It's just about the immediate time perspectives. Well, that's what it means. Why am I doing this? In addition to the fact that I prefer to do everything in my power in graphic constructions so as not to blame myself down to the smallest detail and at the same time more often and more clearly take profits due to this, and in case of losses, not to feel guilty for laziness, inaccuracy or haste, and send all indignation to the developers (if this is their shortcoming) or DC, if this is a kitchen with hairpins, failures or intentional shutdowns of servers on the news and other rubbish. I consider it stupid to sink to the point where the only thing left is to write a complaint against myself. In terms of trading itself, the trader is responsible for his own deposit and must take care of everything that depends entirely on him to the maximum.

I am attaching a fresh example from MT5, where on TFs: M1, M5, M15 one of the three main lines of Andrews' pitchfork disappears (it disappears, and does not move outside the screen's working area).

As a conclusion - think aloud. Don't take it seriously.

All traders know how easily, shamelessly, artificially and not always fair (if ever fair at all) the head of the Fed opens his eyes early in the morning after another social buffet, approaches the monitor, applies a protractor with a slide rule to the chart, something swearingly divides in his head, multiplies on his fingers and finally receives a new discount rate, which he then reports to news agencies in a hoarse voice through a window with a gilded frame. And this effortless orchestration of the global foreign exchange market has lasted for many years, with complete impunity. Perhaps this is good, not evil, but that is not the point.

I don’t know why the market (especially the non-cross of the pair) often very accurately follows Fibo TimeZones - either in an absolutely natural and unconscious way, or still due to reasonable actions of conscious and well-versed in TA participants, deliberately waiting for the market near well-built levels, or maybe both. And if no one fumbled in TA, would the market still go the same way? It is difficult to say for sure, however, in the case of the variant of conscious waiting near the explicit, obvious to everyone and therefore non-subjective levels, a very unexpected picture emerges. Personally, I don’t believe, I’m not interested, and therefore I don’t suffer from conspiracy theories, but I can’t get rid of the observation I noticed. If MT levels are cheating on non-M1 TFs (especially on longer TimeZone lines due to error accumulation), and the share of the most popular MT4 in the trading software market at the same time takes an impressive percentage, it turns out that many traders are forced to trust the cheating MT and rock the market at false breakpoints by making untimely extremes. It reminded me a lot of artificial influence, conscious and intentional control of the market with the help of the discount rate, market maker. And the software of other manufacturers, it seems, does not shine with due accuracy and introduces its own bad influence, if the variant of the initial hypothesis is correct. In essence, I don’t care how things turn out on the market in fact (I’m quite ready for losses), but I want to be calm and sure that, for my part, I did everything in my power in terms of accuracy, literacy and correctness of constructions. And if something goes wrong, then I will already be dissatisfied with looking sideways in the direction of the software developers, and certainly not sprinkle ashes on my head, as was already mentioned earlier. And as for the global conspiracy or "cartel" DC-conspiracy... The difference between a change in the discount rate "from the bulldozer" with the subsequent jerk of the market in the direction the conductor needs and forcing the market to form "false" and untimely extremes lies only in the factor of consciousness, intentionality of intent , evil or whatever. Of course, neither the DC, nor MetaQuotes, nor the Masonic brothers, nor anyone else has ever agreed among themselves about the secret and intentional influence on the market by deliberately introduced incorrectness in graphic constructions. The trading platforms do not include the 25th frame, neither infrared nor ultraviolet noises that affect the rhythms of the brain and manipulate the actions of traders. No special services, oligarchs, rulers, or Providence itself forces us to open up in any direction. Only our psychology, greed, subjectivity and the hypnotic magic of the unbiased market keep us here, forcing us to make "considered" and "conscious" decisions. On this, perhaps, irony will be enough.
Yes, and by the way, another planimetric error is given by the asynchronous opening of the market in different DCs on Monday, as well as closing on Saturday. The value is usually at 1 hour, but sometimes two. Missed bars are not restored by reloading, but a gap is displayed, already in fact, and this very sickly hour falls out of the timeline, which gives an error - the farther, the more.

Developers - respect for the work and spent personal time. Don't back down and don't give up! You will succeed!

[Вадим]

zdd писал(а) # :

A wish for MT5 and MQL:

It would be nice (if it is not too late) to be able to plot (in a separate window) any graph in any coordinates, not only price/time (it may be useful to plot dependence of forecasting error on some parameter; probability distribution of some value; price chart with non-linear time - ticks, renki, kagi, crosses/zeros, etc.). Previously you had to write the data to a file and construct the graphs using other applications.

I fully support this. You really need a "coordinate plane" type graphical object with the property "height N, width M" of pixels. This "coordinate plane" should be associated with Px[M][N][C] array - where M is x coordinate, N is y coordinate, C is colour of pixel on the plane.

[Alexander]

Rinng писал(а) # :
I fully support this. You really need a "coordinate plane" type graphical object with the property "height N, width M" of pixels. With this "coordinate plane" should be associated array Px[M][N][C] - where M is x coordinate, N is y coordinate, C is the colour of the pixel in the plane.

but what prevents you from making such an object yourself? in my opinion, it is possible in mql5. only no Px[M][N][C], you just need methods that convert a point from coordinates on the plane to coordinates on the MT chart and vice versa.

[IGGL]

Renat писал(а) # :

Trading several experts on one symbol is nonsense...

ps: to understand our decisions, you have to take into account that quite a few external requests are poison pills that lead to the death of the project. but not everyone thinks about it, because they live in a one-way evaluation mode.

Renat, apparently you think that independent trading by an experienced team of traders on one currency pair using different TS and timeframes is also nonsense. I do not think so. And what about the EA's wish to "see" what's going on with oil or S&P 500, or what's going on with other currency pairs in order to make a decision? Very often "poison pills" are laid down by the developers themselves, which leads to the death of the project. MT is not going to die in the foreseeable future ;-)

You just had to separate flies from cutlets at the stage of MT prequalification, and the business logic of your custom programs is nailed to the presentation level (visuals). Everything is turned upside down. The program code must be able to access any data for any tool of any time interval, regardless of whether the tool data is displayed or not. In addition, the user program in one module/file should be able to trade on all instruments. I want to sweeten the "pill" and tell you about another "poison pill". There's a thing called Trading Station (FXCM, DBFX). Its developers have not provided a local cache and at a timeframe or symbol change the quotes are downloaded from the server repeatedly. As a result, we have a slow interface, high requirements for the channel and a high load on the server. At the same time, COM and FIX API are free from any restrictions and visualization is out of the question - you can do whatever you want and however you want. I want to work with a tool that was created for traders, not for brokerage companies. You get used to a good thing very quickly... I hope that someday your team will change its orientation under the influence of changes in the forex industry. What about "one-way evaluation", MT has a lot of advantages, but if we talk about key functionality, then (IMHO) MT should quietly smoke on the sidelines when Trading Station is around. For example, MT has good reports and Trading Station totally sucks, but that is not the key functionality, since it has little, if any, impact on trader's efficiency. By the way, when trading with Trading Station, I use MT4 to review the market for six currency pairs. For the ability to quickly switch from one time frame to another and from six windows to one and back again thank you very much! Well done here! MDI with bookmarks is one of the best solutions for such cases.

[Renat Fatkhullin]

x100intraday писал(а) # :

Thank you very much for your work and I wish you further development and prosperity!
And now, a great deal of constructive criticism...

Thank you for so many thorough points - we will think about improvements.

[Renat Fatkhullin]

IGGL писал(а) # :

Renat, you seem to think that independent trading by an experienced team of traders on the same currency pair using different TS and time frames is also nonsense. I don't think so.

I think this is absolute nonsense.

But what about, for example, if an EA wants to "see" what is going on with oil, or S&P 500, or what is going on with other currency pairs in order to make a decision?

In MT5 there is no problem with looking into other instruments. In fact, we have actually removed almost all restrictions on access to historical data and allowed to pump out huge amounts of data.

This is something traders have been asking us to do for a long time.

[Вадим]

GarF1eld писал(а) # :
What prevents you from making such an object yourself? In my opinion, it is possible in mql5. Only no Px[M][N][C], you just need methods that convert a point from coordinates on the plane to coordinates on the MT chart and vice versa.

In my opinion it would be much more difficult to use the graph. Conversion, presence of bars, etc. How much will the linear X and Y scale correspond... Seems easier to use the basic Windows window for this purpose.