Erebus,
Same here too, I'll try and see if I can open it using Safari as a Browser.
Regards,
xrismak.
Same here too, I'll try and see if I can open it using Safari as a Browser.
Regards,
xrismak.
Nb 10.0 trend trading system
Hi Bob,
It happens to the best of us...
In the Attachment You will find the modified Version for your new settings...I already set the Levels to 0.3 and 0.6, and also the High/Low Levels to 0.3, -0.3. But you can set them also manually.
If not, no worries. I think I could make use of some of Baluda's code.
An ounce of profitable logic is worth a pound of efficient code.
First, NT, I must confess that I'm not much of a coder.
I generally only modify indi's to make them compatible with iCustom, and then I move on to the EA. So I guess you could say I have a preference for ready made indi's.
Second, I was about to cut and paste the code you suggested (thank you), but first I compared them both as-is on the same chart. I noticed two things: CSSDiff is less likely to whipsaw between the 0.3 -0.3 levels and zero; and CSSDiff seems a bit smoother when both indi's are in non-repaint mode.
I definitely noticed the longer load time of CSSDiff due to the 26 symbols it's using (in my case). If CPU resources become an issue, then I'll try my hand at coding a non-repainting TMA Slope.
I generally only modify indi's to make them compatible with iCustom, and then I move on to the EA. So I guess you could say I have a preference for ready made indi's.Second, I was about to cut and paste the code you suggested (thank you), but first I compared them both as-is on the same chart. I noticed two things: CSSDiff is less likely to whipsaw between the 0.3 -0.3 levels and zero; and CSSDiff seems a bit smoother when both indi's are in non-repaint mode.
I definitely noticed the longer load time of CSSDiff due to the 26 symbols it's using (in my case). If CPU resources become an issue, then I'll try my hand at coding a non-repainting TMA Slope.
An ounce of profitable logic is worth a pound of efficient code.
- #3,208
- Jul 19, 2012 9:55am Jul 19, 2012 9:55am
Hi rjo,
Everybody started this way...me too...but then comes the time to step up your game if you want to be independent...
The CSS-Diff from Baluda has already all you need...you can either use it as CSS Diff or TMA... you only need to change a couple of lines in the start() Function and it could show you the TMA. Check the lineCSSDiff[i] lines... this is the Array where the Values are put in that are displayed in the CSS Diff. Just change it that way that it calls GetSlope instead and you have a TMA Histo. And get Rid of the CalculateCurrencySlopeStrength() Function...this is where the heavy calculation for CSS is handled. Good Luck.
You can check both slopes side by side with my "NT TMA-CSS-SP" Indicator that is shared on Steve's Forum. You will see that both are almost all the time exact the same with the CSS-Diff only slightly off. It is independent if they are in repainting or non repainting mode. They move the same way and therefor your assumption that the CSS Diff would be smoother is only a subjective observation that has nothing to do with how they look in reality. I also don't see that much of a whipsaw in the 0.3 Levels...and Bob also wouldn't set the Levels now to 0.3 if this really would be the case...It depends on how You use the TMA(s).
It is no problem if you only have a couple of charts open and you also can optimize the CSS with the maxBars setting that it calculates not the whole history of the chart.
happy trading,
NeoTrader
First, NT, I must confess that I'm not much of a coder.
The CSS-Diff from Baluda has already all you need...you can either use it as CSS Diff or TMA... you only need to change a couple of lines in the start() Function and it could show you the TMA. Check the lineCSSDiff[i] lines... this is the Array where the Values are put in that are displayed in the CSS Diff. Just change it that way that it calls GetSlope instead and you have a TMA Histo. And get Rid of the CalculateCurrencySlopeStrength() Function...this is where the heavy calculation for CSS is handled. Good Luck.
Second, I was about to cut and paste the code you suggested (thank you), but first I compared them both as-is on the same chart. I noticed two things: CSSDiff is less likely to whipsaw between the 0.3 -0.3 levels and zero; and CSSDiff seems a bit smoother when both indi's are in non-repaint mode.
I definitely noticed the longer load time of CSSDiff due to the 26 symbols it's using (in my case). If CPU resources become an issue, then I'll try my hand at coding a non-repainting TMA Slope.
happy trading,
NeoTrader
Thank you for the quick coding lesson. This helps me tremendously going forward.
I can see that the two indi's are essentially the same for the purposes of 10.2A. Perhaps I should have said "rattle inside" instead of "whipsaw between." If I look at Jul 9 12:00-ish on my chart from a few posts ago, TMA is nearly 3 while CSSDiff is nearly zero. The CSSDiff histo bars also seem more uniform in size. If you say the math is the same, I believe you. When I recode the indi and get the same result, I'll really believe you!
Anyway... in 10.2A, no one would be trading in either case, so I'll stop blithering on about semantics now.
I was just over at SHF and someone in Baluda's thread requested an Add Sunday to Monday TMA. I have Sunday bars, so this will be my next feat. Thanks again.
I can see that the two indi's are essentially the same for the purposes of 10.2A. Perhaps I should have said "rattle inside" instead of "whipsaw between." If I look at Jul 9 12:00-ish on my chart from a few posts ago, TMA is nearly 3 while CSSDiff is nearly zero. The CSSDiff histo bars also seem more uniform in size. If you say the math is the same, I believe you. When I recode the indi and get the same result, I'll really believe you!
Anyway... in 10.2A, no one would be trading in either case, so I'll stop blithering on about semantics now.I was just over at SHF and someone in Baluda's thread requested an Add Sunday to Monday TMA. I have Sunday bars, so this will be my next feat. Thanks again.
An ounce of profitable logic is worth a pound of efficient code.
- #3,210
- Jul 24, 2012 3:02pm Jul 24, 2012 3:02pm
Hi Bob,
It happens to the best of us...
In the Attachment You will find the modified Version for your new settings...I already set the Levels to 0.3 and 0.6, and also the High/Low Levels to 0.3, -0.3. But you can set them also manually.
just one question, maybe it has avoided my attention... what is the major difference between the new slope indicator and the one used earlier?
Thanks,
Rewand
functionaltrader.com
- #3,216
- Sep 2, 2012 6:48am Sep 2, 2012 6:48am
- Joined Jul 2011 | Status: Gold Again | 10,564 Posts
It takes a lot for me to IGNORE you, but you can try.
- #3,217
- Sep 2, 2012 7:07am Sep 2, 2012 7:07am
- Joined Jun 2007 | Status: Teach men to fish | 7,384 Posts
- #3,219
- Sep 2, 2012 8:15am Sep 2, 2012 8:15am
- Joined Jul 2011 | Status: Gold Again | 10,564 Posts
It takes a lot for me to IGNORE you, but you can try.
- #3,220
- Sep 2, 2012 12:48pm Sep 2, 2012 12:48pm
@ code mate, as per the previous post by Jemook,
Drop everything you are doing and head over to Steve Hopwood's forum if you want to follow this system.
http://www.stevehopwoodforex.com/php...forum.php?f=37
i just check out all possibilities and dimensions of the thing that interest me . i'm not that serious about it
from your previous post , i learned that , you trade on some time tf and if you are running in losses you check for daily tf .. (right ?)
note : if you u are using any indicator/EA for calculating data on other tf ... the indi. will only work on data available in history . because , terminal only seek data update of the tf and currency which is pulled on your screen (in front of you ) and it only updates data of the 'tf in calculation' when only and only you switch you that tf . so , you are getting signal calculated on history data .
hence , pulling you into loser trades ...
to handle this , the gimmick is in source code of indi./EA .