Expansion of the standard timeframe range towards higher periods
your pictures show time ranges (from and to), not large TF candles.
ps. something similar in the very first screenshot, but how can there be 8 quarters in a year?your pictures show time ranges (from and to), not large TF candles.
ps. something similar in the very first screenshot, but how can there be 8 quarters in a year?I agree about the second and third screenshots: it is the range there, not each "bar" (in fact we see a section of a broken line) of 1 year. So they misunderstood the meaning of the TF value, or deliberately didn't seek to conform to that idea. But that's not the point, it's the fact that there is an extended ruler.
The 8 quarters there are not in a year, but in two - look more closely at the date range. Q1 is 3 months, 4 quarters in a year, 8 quarters in 2.
- ru.investing.com
One chance in life" trading strategy - Pinbar from level on Y5 timeframe
I think higher timeframes are needed only for analysis of instrument selection, taking into account seasonality/cyclicality. And usually these things are not done in the terminal (or using written indicators).
If you download such a history of higher prices with all ticks for all time, you will not have enough hard disks.
If we download such a history of higher prices with all ticks for the whole time, we will not have enough hard disks.
This is too simplistic and rough view of the market from the height of the Y5. Why is it the only one at once? Is it for long-term investors who make a once-in-a-lifetime trade? And who's stopping you from also pipsing and/or being a medium-term investor? The owner is the boss.
Let me rejoice: ticks began to be stored in the electronic history since 1999, before that neither ticks, nor minutes, nor hours were taken into account - only D1 as a bar minimum. So a strong and avalanche-like addition of data is not expected.
The need to expand the range of TFs is an inevitable future, which has already arrived. And with that comes the era of multi-terrabyte drives. By the way, do you know what is historical data of different TFs of one and the same instrument formed and how it is stored in MT5? I haven't really gone into it, but in my opinion the tick history is the same for all the TFs. Adding higher TFs will not add ticks, they are added as slowly as before during the next trading session, day by day, second by second due to new trade quotes coming in, not otherwise. And then, the minimum stored historical unit on disk is M1, not a tick, although I may be wrong, because in the Strategy Tester you can run MQL programs on history on ticks. And by the way, you seem to understand it better than I do, so my question is: what do your calculations show in terms of space occupied by the tick history for Y5?
You seem to understand this better than I do, so my question is: what do your calculations show in terms of tick history space for Y5?
I got 10GB of quotes when I switched on the dashboard, tracking from M1 to D1. Then I switched brokers and got another 10Gb. So multiply by the number of brokers and terminals.
I do not argue with you. If you want functionality, write all the advantages. When others will ask, maybe they will add. In practice, I see that one person's desires that do not resonate with others are often ignored.
Thanks for creating a good opportunity to prove the opposite to all who still support you and do not understand the benefits of expanding the line, which is visible not at annual levels in the form of "The only chance in life", but at medium-term with a lot of opportunities within a few days, if not days, then at least weeks - and this is enough for a huge layer of mid-term and especially long-term traders, of which I assume a smaller number, but nevertheless.
Here is an illustration of hypermarkets (presumably from multi-month and annual TFs). Built, of course, manually, the indicator does not build this now. Shown from the height of MN. The whole history of the currency pair is displayed. By the frequency of fractals we can see that according to the maximum ТF this is the maximum for them, they will not be wider, but connecting lines of Fibo TimeZones are evidently wider than the nearest fractals:
Here are illustrative results on a smaller timeframe H12. The medium term breaks right on the vertical lines of the Fibo TimeZones are clearly visible here; the large public is squealing in ecstasy:
![NZDUSD H12 Fibo TimeZones HyperMarkUp[1]](https://c.mql5.com/3/375/NZDUSD_H12_FiboTZ_HyperMarkUpl1h.png "NZDUSD H12 Fibo TimeZones HyperMarkUp[1]")
![NZDUSD H12 Fibo TimeZones HyperMarkUp[2]](https://c.mql5.com/3/375/NZDUSD_H12_FiboTZ_HyperMarkUpa2l.png "NZDUSD H12 Fibo TimeZones HyperMarkUp[2]")
So how's that for you, Elon Musk? Don't pick on the accuracy of breaks - the markets are approximate, but we are not suckers and we will not go to the market with 1:1000 leverage with the maximum lot, but we will also look at and analyze the younger TFs. And no one has cancelled SL.
By the way, the same effect on other TA charting tools.
Now know and join the cult of Hypertimeframe Witnesses. Knowledge is power!
I agree about the second and third screenshots: it's the range there, not each "bar" (in fact we see a section of a broken line) at 1 year. So they misunderstood the meaning of the TF, or deliberately didn't seek to conform to that idea. But that's not the point, it's the fact that there is an extended ruler.
The 8 quarters there are not in a year, but in two - look more closely at the date range. Q1 is 3 months, 4 quarters in a year, 8 quarters in 2.
They are who? I mean the ones who got it wrong.
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
You agree to website policy and terms of use
Dear MetaQuotes!
The need for higher TFs in Metatrader and MQL has been long overdue!
Are there plans to increase the range of periods beyondMN? In MT5 the upper TF button is signed asMN, while in MQL5 the higher period is PERIOD_MN1, i.e. with an index. This is a very promising hint. It's a promise for the future, isn't it? So when will we see the additional and much-needed higher TFs? Better late than never, but better now than late. I would like to live to see it.
For MT4 there are converters for non-standard periods:https://www.mql5.com/ru/code/7936 andhttps://www.mql5.com/ru/code/7935, but for MT5 I haven't found anything similar. Years ago I managed to convert bars to something more than MN with this script, but such trick failed the other day (maybe my hands got crooked), although everything was done according to instructions. And I'm not writing for outdated MT4 as a matter of principle... In addition, MetaQuotes has created MT5 and MQL5 and promoted this new platform expecting that the old programmers will use it, and the newbies will start using it right away.
Yes, they can do various tricks and write crutches to simulate non-existing higher order TFs. But which MQL5 programmer(not MetaQuotes developers) believes that it is everyone's task to write his or her own crutch or search and add some alien crutch? I'm sure it won't be a technological problem for MetaQuotes to addW2,MN2, MN3, MN4, MN6, Y1, Y2, Y5, but it will be an ideological one. The problem will be something like: "Where can we introduce such a long line of MFs? People don't live so long, it's enough for a trader's lifetime! But they do! And as it turned out, it is not enough.
I'm not ambitious: work on existing timeframes sometimes reminds me of a mouse fuss, even, strange as it may seem, on MN1. I'm not just using fancy words and not engaging in hyperbole; otherwise I wouldn't need to see what's going on in the higher TFs.
Examples of third-party trade interfaces:
https://www.moex.com/ru/issue/EURUSD000TOM/CETS:
https://ru.investing.com/?ref=www:
https://quote.rbc.ru/ticker/59111:
and so on...
It is awfully bad to be blind kittens, not seeing or understanding what is going on in the markets on a more global level. It happens so that the indicator of a seemingly large period can not just point to the beginning of a prolonged fracture and a new multi-month or even multi-year trend (that will flat on the peak for a long time, and will allow a lot of profit on a smaller TF), but will give both strategic and tactical signal for the near future now (especially for entering short positions, known for their transience, but also not excluding the high volatility). Being aware of the big signal will not allow for mistakes on the smaller timeframes, the reverse does not work, but generally speaking,awareness is needed on all levels! Why is it that still the vast majority of trading robots fail sooner or later, even though they weren't written by amateurs? It is because they do not see the top level and at some point there comes a period of inevitable painful dumping. And senior TFs should be and they should be designed for the whole life cycle of a trader if he really wants to devote his whole life to profitable trading or write a successful robot that would provide him with a lifetime of trading. Even if such a robot starts to fail, it won't fail in a couple or three years, but far beyond the obituary.
For example, personally I occasionally miss even the older technical markup by the indicatorhttps://www.mql5.com/ru/code/34280 and have to deal with hours of manual re-mapping from imaginary global TFs the old fashioned way. Yes, we can say that since it is close to the global one, we will not have to frequently re-mark/re-mark the chart. This is true, but. It concerns only one tool (symbol). If there are two of them, the time and effort are doubled. If a trader works with multiple currencies, this is a serious problem. The whole point of the markup indicator, and any such indicators in general, is the automation of manual work. And while the effect is only partial, it is an insult for the semi-efficient work of the programmer. And we, programmers, have to work much harder to invent the next crutch, thanMetaQuotes does to add a few additional TFs according to the already known and well-established scheme.
I'd like to find as many allies in this thread as possible, so as not to end up with another "have a conscience, only you need this". If it were only for me, I wouldn't have posted the indicator in CodeBase or Market. I've had about fifty downloads in six months. The average rating is 4. If you find more, you'll hardly find more than 4.5. So it's in demand. And it is not the only one, there are a lot of other free indicators that lack higher TFs. For example, the indicators of lines Pivots, Supports, Resistances (there is more than one type: CLASSIC, FIBONACCI, DEMARK, CAMARILLA, WOODIES): https://www.mql5.com/ru/code/102.
Of course, there are also such nice built-in indicators as trend indicators, which show the market direction in the long term quite well and with which oscillators cannot cope, but in a global situation they also need something to rely on, otherwise the same old mouse fights, blind kittens, previous mistakes and unreasonably high number of losing deals, and not frequent potentially profitable ones will occur.
A simple arithmetic justification for the necessity to extend the range of TFs as far as Y5: for example, over 600 bars on EUR/USD have accumulated since 1971 on MN- it is 600/12/5=10 bars onY5, which is already enough for the calculation of most indicators. For example, for the Fractals indicator we need at least 5 bars, but there are twice as many. My technical drawing is based precisely on the Fractals indicator.
The programmatic and algorithmic justification: I should say at once, as a matter of principle I don't avoid crutches, if I have to write, I will do it. But. Categorically and fundamentally against crutches-bicycle, duplicating already available means of achievement of result in view of any small misunderstanding. I believe that the ideology and philosophy of programming is to write exceptional non-repeating functions, and not to duplicate the same in different ways within the same project. And what do the creators of MQL suggest we do? To connect ready to use standard indicators a la iFractals through appealing and deceptiveiCustom() andIndicatorCreate() - they say, dear programmers, we did it for you! I honored the developers by including their indicator, so that their efforts weren't wasted, and I ended up with TFs limitations. What should I do? To write a duplicated crutch to achieve the same result, but in a different way. Why? Why give a fisherman a half-dog? At mql5.com nobody asks for fish, they come here for fishing rods, but they also turn out to be shortened quite a bit. Hence the conclusion: either connect ready modules with restrictions and write crutches similar in result but different in implementation, or completely throw out the bearish service in the form of a ready base module and simply write your own clean code from scratch. In both cases, we will not see the 100% benefit from obligingly provided carrot. A very limited benefit that is better not to be associated with for an ambitious programmer. But if MetaQuotes adds a few higher TFs, they will immediately justify their efforts for the creation and connectivity of many standard indicators, and at the same time, they will help the programmers who trusted them. Double benefit.
The addition of the TFs will increase the competitiveness of the MT5 among other trading platforms. And the mutually beneficial cooperation between MetaQuotes and programmers greatly increases the motivation for the further development and support of their MQL-code. If you read the forum, you will find the posts whereMetaQuotes itself is pushing the MQL programmers who inevitably promote the trading platform (including the paid server part) and the language, bringing not only fame to MetaQuotes, but also profit - and this is exactly the mutual benefit.
That's all for now. Lynch...