Because you added your name and Yuriyzp at the top of the display -- as though this was your EA. Your modifications did not improve the algorithm or its performance -- yet you insert yourself in the code and attempt to take credit for something you did not create. Very uncool...
{quote} If you respect the author of EA, then you should have read his post, where he asked not to use "OP" in the name of any modification. But you did not read it either. What's wrong with you?
Ignored
Wow, you are on war path, or what? No I did not read that. Sorry, just try to help. But i don't see why you attacking me? Let's keep it friendly here.
{quote} Wow, you are on war path, or what? No I did not read that. Sorry, just try to help. But i don't see why you attacking me? Let's keep it friendly here.
Ignored
there are 2 warnings in your code
return value of 'OrderModify' should be checked ULTRON_OP_1.mq4 100 16
return value of 'OrderModify' should be checked ULTRON_OP_1.mq4 106 16
{quote} Because you added your name and Yuriyzp at the top of the display -- as though this was your EA. Your modifications did not improve the algorithm or its performance -- yet you insert yourself in the code and attempt to take credit for something you did not create. Very uncool...
Ignored
Especially for the blind showing the picture: Who sees well will be able to easily notice that the author’s copyright has been preserved! and added authors modification. What's wrong?
{quote} Wow, you are on war path, or what? No I did not read that. Sorry, just try to help. But i don't see why you attacking me? Let's keep it friendly here.
Ignored
I'm not going to fight with anyone. I even told you how to correct your mistakes) That means I'm as friendly as possible. Is not it?))
If the price has not reached 73 pips and has gone back, then the order will close at 68 pips, as programmed in EA.
Ignored
Not true -- the next bar could drop by 10 pips (or more) -- and then you would close below 68.
Obviously @Pawel has spent a lot of time developing and testing the Ultron EA. Why would you want to keep messing with it? Are you so clever that after possessing the code for a few hours you are going to make significant improvements? And for how many weeks or months have you tested your results on a real account? You did one back test? Well, that's reassuring...
The original EA is extremely simple -- written in less than 100 lines of code. And it works. It was the author's design and intent to keep it simple. I suggest we honor his request and leave it to the OP to make any necessary changes. Give the OP the pleasure of "owning" his project without everyone and their brother sticking their hands in and trying to take credit.
Especially for the blind showing the picture: Who sees well will be able to easily notice that the author’s copyright has been preserved! and added authors modification. What's wrong?
Ignored
I don't know -- looks like your name at the top. I don't see Pawel Gawron mentioned anywhere, do you?
{quote} Not true -- the next bar could drop by 10 pips (or more) -- and then you would close below 68.
Ignored
I see you know better than me how my code works?)) Fantastic)) But you are mistaken, as always) Lower 68 order can not close! This is how the code works. If you think it works the way you wrote, then do not use 3.1.7-TR
Obviously @Pawel has spent a lot of time developing and testing the Ultron EA. Why would you want to keep messing with it? Are you so clever that after possessing the code for a few hours you are going to make significant improvements? And for how many weeks or months have you tested your results on a real account? You did one back test? Well, that's reassuring... The original EA is extremely simple -- written in less than 100 lines of code. And it works. It was the author's design and intent to keep it simple. I suggest we honor his request and...
Ignored
How many weeks or months? How many months have you been testing EA?)))) Do not you think that it is very stupid to ask the question "how many weeks or months" if an EA appeared Oct 27, 2018 6:34am?))
Added some more input options to it. Put TralingStopLossRoom on 0 to turn it off. And under the motto kiss; now 87 lines of code. Thanks again to topic starter! {file}
Ignored
You also asked not to write "OP" in the title of EA?
You are definitely blind)) it says MOD !!!!!! Do you see it?))
Ignored
The point is that only your name is displayed when the EA runs. Also, "MOD" could mean anything. Perhaps you added something important, perhaps you simply added an information box. No one knows. But you still claim credit -- as though the EA was yours and the original author is long gone.
If you really had to add a name -- it would have been more gracious to mention Pawel, rather than just yourself.
{quote} The point is that only your name is displayed when the EA runs. Also, "MOD" could mean anything. Perhaps you added something important, perhaps you simply added an information box. No one knows. But you still claim credit -- as though the EA was yours and the original author is long gone. If you really had to add a name -- it would have been more gracious to mention Pawel, rather than just yourself.
Ignored
Maybe the name of the author is better seen? I also indicated the authors of the modification, as these two people made significant additions to the original code. Or do not you think so? If you do not think, then do not use this mod.
I see you know better than me how my code works?)) Fantastic)) But you are mistaken, as always) Lower 68 order can not close!
Ignored
You keep calling me blind, but since you did not provide the *.mq4 source code then there really is no way someone else could confirm, is there? Sort of convenient. Also, sort of selfish, considering the OP shared with you the source code for his Ultron EA.
Quoting Feex
Disliked
How many weeks or months? How many months have you been testing EA?)))) Do not you think that it is very stupid to ask the question "how many weeks or months" if an EA appeared Oct 27, 2018 6:34am?))
Ignored
That was exactly my point -- I was being sarcastic. There is no way you could have done as much thinking and testing as the OP. That is why it seems odd that (a) you think you know better about the EA than the OP, and (2) that because it "seems" to work in the back tester that people should assume your version is more reliable and robust than the OP's version.
@Feex -- okay, I'm done, I won't bother you anymore. I know your intentions are good. It's just that I've seen many EAs that start off good but then get overrun by strangers who claim they are "just making it better". In the end, the original OP stops posting because he has lost control of the project. Do you know what I mean?
Added some more input options to it. Put TralingStopLossRoom on 0 to turn it off. And under the motto kiss; now 87 lines of code. Thanks again to topic starter! {file}
{quote} You keep calling me blind, but since you did not provide the *.mq4 source code then there really is no way someone else could confirm, is there? Sort of convenient. Also, sort of selfish, considering the OP shared with you the source code for his Ultron EA. {quote} That was exactly my point -- I was being sarcastic. There is no way you could have done as much thinking and testing as the OP. That is why it seems odd that (a) you think you know better about the EA than the OP, and (2) that because it "seems" to work in the back tester that...
Ignored
Oh my God... I do not ask to consider my version more reliable !! This is just one of the versions, no more! And the author did not stop publishing his EA. If he stops, he will say so.
I understood that your visit to me is connected with the fact that I did not provide mq4. First, I have not completed this modification. Secondly, my friend helped me, he wrote a tral and he does not want this code to go to public. And thirdly, after your robots4me claims, I have no desire to spread something more here.
Can you set the variables similar to your own to see how the results are, can you also backtest the original one with same data (and post all 3 results in one topic). It's nice to see a good comparison as i am not sure if my modified version is an improvement or not.
Thanks.
/edit:
I did some testing myself as well. with the right numbers it does create more profit and the hours are very important to set right. My input data for optimal results;
{quote} Thanks Feex. Can you set the variables similar to your own to see how the results are, can you also backtest the original one with same data (and post all 3 results in one topic). It's nice to see a good comparison as i am not sure if my modified version is an improvement or not. Thanks. /edit: I did some testing myself as well. with the right numbers it does create more profit and the hours are very important to set right. My input data for optimal results; stopLossPips = 525 TakeProfitPips = 700 TralingStopLossRoom = 150 hour1 = 6 hour2...
{quote} Thanks Feex. Can you set the variables similar to your own to see how the results are, can you also backtest the original one with same data (and post all 3 results in one topic). It's nice to see a good comparison as i am not sure if my modified version is an improvement or not. Thanks. /edit: I did some testing myself as well. with the right numbers it does create more profit and the hours are very important to set right. My input data for optimal results; stopLossPips = 525 TakeProfitPips = 700 TralingStopLossRoom = 150 hour1 = 6 hour2...
Ignored
with your new default settings, and added slippage to your settings
also fixed the errors that were visible when adding a line:
#property strict
My "Ultron" EA for GBPUSD H1 timeframe
