Paul, Thank you for the information. However, it is meaningless without knowing the number of bars processed. 7000 bars is the minimum number I process in realtime and I would like to bump that up to 15000, speed permitting. All my continuous functions are variable period and I only have one RT chart open. 2.8 GHz virtual processor (2 of 4 cores assigned to the virtual machine). I would have to replace my custom built functions with your standard ones, so I would need to compare results between the two. I don't think it is possible to test without an evaluation period.
BR, Dennis On Jun 25, 2010, at 11:41 PM, WiseStockTrader wrote: > Hello Dennis > > All the indicator formulas execute within about 2 - 4 milliseconds which is > on average about 0.003 seconds. The only exceptions to this are the the > Hilbert Oscillator (7 milliseconds), Sine Wave (38 milliseconds) and > automatic support (90 milliseconds). > > Some functions are a little slower than the native Amibroker versions because > they verify the data supplied to them and because they are variable period > functions so the same optimizations do not apply but I don't think you will > ever notice the difference unless you have a hundred realtime charts open. > > All tests conducted on 2.4ghz Core 2 processor. > > Regards, > Paul > > --- In [email protected], Dennis Brown <se...@...> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I agree with the sentiment below. While it is not unreasonable for a >> specialized tool to cost more than the base product (based on amortizing the >> costs over a smaller user base), there should be a way to test its value. >> In my case, I have written many overlapping functions to these in AFL. >> Speed is my issue. I would love to test the functionality against my own >> versions for speed. I am trying to trade realtime, and I have 2 second >> compute delays. Speeding up my routines is high on my wish list. It would >> take some time and effort on my part just to evaluate its usefulness as >> integrated into my routines. I have already run down the route of >> purchasing a toolbox that could not be returned, only to discover that it >> was useless to me after a lot of effort. Insult added to injury that I >> would not like to repeat. However, I am interested in finding out if it can >> be of value to me. >> >> Best regards, >> Dennis >> >> On Jun 25, 2010, at 10:58 AM, cjdudek wrote: >> >>> Yeah, this looks fairly useful and I don't mind paying for somebody else's >>> code, but not without a free trial like AmiBroker offered, especially >>> considering your "no refund" policy. It's really hard to look at >>> documentation to decide whether or not it's worth $300. I looked at plenty >>> of AmiBroker alternatives that looked good on their web sites but didn't >>> offer the functionality of AmiBroker. I think a product like this might >>> make AmiBroker 10% or 20% more useful, but not 100% more useful, so the >>> price does not seem to reflect the value. If I had a 30-day or even 10-day >>> free trial I might change my mind. >>> >>> --- In [email protected], ram vel <rvlv@> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi wisestocktrader >>>> Thanks for your info with indepth idea of your toolset. >>>> CAN YOU PLEASE GIVE US LINK FOR HAVING A TRIAL OF YOUR TOOLBOX,PLEASE >>> >>> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > **** IMPORTANT PLEASE READ **** > This group is for the discussion between users only. > This is *NOT* technical support channel. > > TO GET TECHNICAL SUPPORT send an e-mail directly to > SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com > > TO SUBMIT SUGGESTIONS please use FEEDBACK CENTER at > http://www.amibroker.com/feedback/ > (submissions sent via other channels won't be considered) > > For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG: > http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
