Wishes for MQL5 - page 122
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
2) The same goes for the vertical grid lines - they are also "nothing" now, but should be tied to a round clock or half-hour, etc.. Or better yet, make it so that you can separate the inclusion of horizontal and vertical grid lines. Yes, there are period separators now, but they are very coarse "separating", a smaller division (more liquid dotted line) would be desirable.
I.e. an ideal grid is one in which both vertical and horizontal lines are attached to something real and have gradations of "density" depending on the "roundness" of the number.
3) Adjustment of bar widths and spacing - now we have the most popular variant of candlesticks with body thickness, body and shadow borders and spacing 1 pixel, and then comes the variant with 3 pixel body, bar borders and shadow thickness 1 pixel and spacing 3 pixels. Why not leave all these settings to the user? Or maybe people will like the variant - the body is 2 pixels without borders and with a shadow of 2 pixels, the distance between candlesticks is 1 pixel. Or a body of 3 pixels without borders, a shadow of 1 pixel, or a body of 3 pixels, a distance of 1 pixel. Or a body of 4 pixels without borders, shadows 2 pixels, spacing 1-2 pixels. Or body 2 pixels, body border 1 pixel, shadows 2 pixels, distance 1-2 pixels.
4) Shift of the chart from the right edge - now it is not configurable exactly how much it should be shifted. It would be desirable to adjust (now it shifts too far).
Please make indicators and advisors from MT4 work on MT5!
Add some recompilation function, i.e., let's say you put an indicator or expert advisor from MT4 into MT5 terminal and in a special menu in MetaEditor press the compile to mql5 button, for example!
I think thousands of traders will support me!
We hope so, and believe so!
Sincerely.
Then how are we programmers going to earn our bread and butter and caviar?
No way! I'm against it!
Once again, about lockstep positions!
Most disputes are pointless - we say the same thing, but in different words - in most cases we get away from the point!
the argument about the profitability of lock is meaningless because lock can be programmed without a lock (even if the response and the cost - of course there will be nuances, and the difference is in them) - in this context, the loss is like a "program without the program" (we open the lot, and when the TP of the first "as if closed" deal is reached, we open the same one, but inversely) - but with the loss we win on costs - I think the loss is a bit illogical in a big difference between economy and possible loss, but for a small difference in volatility ...
The argument about the morality or logics of multi-directional trades is also meaningless - because the price of opening them is different (of course locks are opened immediately after the deal and at the same price - this is already a question) I often buy and sell the same product from one seller and it's a matter of mutual benefit - for example when I urgently need money or to buy was to reach a wholesale price.
The plus of the lack of a loca is that the number of orders seems to decrease - but that is also at first sight!
I think the averaging of one-way orders - is a positive moment and lots should be kept - we should give an opportunity to refuse to set them off in the menu (or at least even by broker's choice)! MT4 - this will be outdated so lots are not quite right here!
If you look at the root, the locks still leave more freedom and less cost.
And the possibility of losing lots for some to increase - for others to reduce (roughly speaking:
For beginners - increase
For "average" - decrease
for experienced traders - they do not influence them, but they give more freedom, less expenses and more temptation - for no one can get rid of it completely (at least those who deal in Forex).
I think they are trying to fight "middle" traders and small brokerage companies - but their estimation is wrong because their number is growing.
I think we should put pressure on developers so that they would leave lots at least in some version - this is profitable for them too - more brokers will refuse from MT4.
Besides the cancellation of the lock positions may increase the probability of a competitor appearing for MT5.
Then how are we programmers going to earn our bread and butter and caviar?
No way! I'm against it!
Damn it!
You have enough work as it is :)
Like writing beginners' grails :)
I'm for supporting the old in the new!
If you go deeper, I don't give a shit... If a thing is necessary and useful then it's possible to pay to redo it.
And if the programmers don't have work, they will become dumbed down, and then who will fix the bugs in MT 5 ?
:)
There has to be harmony in everything
When you open the instrument tab it gives the selected timeframe. Is it possible to bind indices to the instrument window without going into its settings but by deselecting the submenu of the instrument name to divide the window into times and lines in the window for your timeframe? I have to create a template for one instrument with individual settings of indices displaying by times. You may attack the tool by analysis on different times, just change the time, and what is already frozen on the chart (if you change the time through a submenu, rather than a special menu) in your own time. As a result, 2 indicators will not occupy half of the window on the average size monitor, and fibo lines (like H4) can not move away from the resistance lines in another time frame (like D1), maybe it has risen differently. If you want to change not a font, but something more important, you should create a template. It's not convenient when analyzing data with the help of hands.