Errors, bugs, questions - page 694
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
Unfortunately, there will be no change on the issue of filling in bar voids.
Judging by the fact that you do not give any specific counter-arguments (indeed, there cannot be any in essence), the only reason remains - the economics/timing of the project (MT5).
Probably, the point of no return is now passed and changing the basic structure of the story will cost too much: too much will have to be redesigned (server/terminal/tester).
The point of no return has probably now been passed and changing this basic story setup will cost too much: too much will have to be redesigned (server/terminal/tester).
So it is. But the product is being made for years to come. Here, if you miscalculate, competitors can sweep it away. So the point of no return depends heavily on the foresight of the developers. It is possible to slow down a little bit the promotion of the product, but at the same time making it competitive to future alternative solutions. Or, you can "give up" on everything they say and finish it faster. And then get frustrated when competitors easily implement all the common-sense wishes-necessities expressed here.
If the main user of the terminal is hamsters, Metaquotes may not change anything. It won't make any difference.
Judging by the fact that you do not give any specific counter-arguments (indeed, there cannot be any in essence), the only reason left is the economics/timeframe of the project (MT5).
Probably, the point of no return is now passed and changing this basic structure of history will cost too much: too much will have to be redesigned (server/terminal/tester).
The issue of empty bars has been raised many times over the last 10 years. And everything has happened before my eyes and with my participation.
So, over these 10 years, no justification for filling these voids has been found, but the understanding that doing so in any case is not allowed, has only grown.
Whoever demands the filling of the voids in order to simplify his life in the analysis of the minutes does not understand the consequences of such a decision. And it seems to him that it is simple - "here is a trader, here is his terminal and that's it! There is no one else, no brokers, no developers, no other traders with cry WTF?, no infrastructure (hello claud!), no support requirements (Metakvots will now be guilty to death), no influence on accounting (nice from a control and liquidity provider), etc."
Few traders have actually used the dodge-filled charts. If it were not so, we would have seen what happens with some indicators when they run into an area of 10-20 dojas, when some of them foolishly fail with division by zero, when they draw stuck lines, etc.
99% to 1% there will be a situation where the bulk of traders will take such a regime with wild indignation, to which the good advisors will pull out a deadly "argument" in the form of "what's the big deal? make a tick!". And the situation will become three times more complicated and dangerous. But what do the councillors care? They will still have advice on how to solve problems. As usual - by making it optional!
Now the standard bar formatting mechanism is working, as it is in all other systems and there is no sense to change it.
PS: Our company is changing a lot by introducing best practices in both trading terminals and trading platforms. But in this case you can't change.
It is. But the product is made for years to come. If you miscalculate, competitors can sweep it away. Therefore, the point of no return depends heavily on the foresight of the developers. It is possible to slow down the promotion of the product, but at the same time make it competitive to future alternative solutions. Or, you can "give up" on everything they say and finish it faster. And then get frustrated when competitors easily implement all the common sense wishes-necessities expressed here.
If the main user of the terminal is hamsters, then Metaquotes may not change anything. It won't make any difference.
Motivation in the form of competitors for a year or two certainly will not.
That is why we have to rely on the ideology of the project team and Renat Fatkhullin personally:
"If we come to the conclusion that the product can be qualitatively improved, we do it. And it doesn't matter if we have to rewrite everything from scratch or not. We're not afraid of that!
In hindsight, all of our work is characterised by a constant desire to improve products, a desire to optimise. That's the word we put in our slogan: Optimize and Lead!"
Renat Fatkhullin (c)
Hopefully... I'm sure such talented people are true to their ideology to the end!
The standard bar formatting mechanism now works, as it does in all other systems, and there is no point in changing it.
Lies! Again, so many words and not one concrete counter-argument.
Of course it is a lie.
After all, there really is no one but the trader and his terminal.
There will definitely be no motivation in the form of competitors for a year or two.
That is why we have to rely on the project team and Renat Fatkhullin personally:
"If we come to the conclusion that the product can be qualitatively improved, we do it. And it doesn't matter if we have to rewrite everything from scratch or not. We are not afraid of that!
In hindsight, all of our work is characterised by a constant desire to improve products, a desire to optimise. That's the word we put in our slogan: Optimize and Lead!"
Renat Fatkhullin (c)
Hopefully... I'm sure such talented people are true to their ideology to the end!
After all, there really is no one but the trader and his terminal.
Speak for your systems, but to justify your crutches by claiming that other systems have the same crutches is nonsense. There are systems where such crutches do not exist. Yes, they are not as popular as MT4 - here you have a very cool and well-deserved win, but they do exist. We do not have such crutches - here you have won very well and deservedly so. The only thing they do not have is popularity. You are out of competition here at the moment.
The people who give you reasonable ideas and arguments here are not trying to mock MT5, calling it crap and the other systems great. They are genuinely advocating for MT5 to be the most user friendly and well thought out platform possible.
Few traders in reality use dojami-filled charts. Otherwise they would see what some indicators turn into when they run into an area of 10-20 dojas, when some of them foolishly fail with division by zero, when they draw stuck lines etc.
Your first counter-argument is on the merits. Let's reflect on it. In the abstract for now.
What is a bar? It is a grouping of quotes by period. Let's take the situation we are discussing: for one minute there was not a single offer in the price cup. What do we see?
In the current interpretation of MQ (History DB).
This minute in the "life of MQ" simply did not exist. It's a gouged out point on a time line. But this is unnatural to say the least!
Compare this with another interpreter.
Such a bar in history exists. But its Tick Volume value = 0.
Yes. In indicators we will have to forcibly write a comparison operator for each bar if (TickVolume != 0) .....
But! It is natural for human perception!
There are systems with no such crutches.
Lack of missed bars is not a crutch.
The 11th Ukrainian Exchange stock (DOEN) by turnover today (start 10:30, stop 17:30):
I'm horrified to see a chart with dodges and the impact of all the tech analysis tools.
The 0-volume bar is a synthetic construct - there is no need to take such constructs as a basis for all.