I'll post them in the AFL library...
--- In [email protected], "Anthony Faragasso" <ajf1...@...> wrote:
>
> I would like a copy also...if possible..
>
> Thank you
> Anthony
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rick Osborn
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2010 11:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [amibroker] Re: New 3rd party toolset for AmiBroker
>
>
>
>
> Rob
> I would like a copy.
> I have been trying to translate EasyLanguage and other code but I just
> don't understand the math and my attempts just don't look right.
>
>
> Best Regards
> Rick Osborn
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Rob <sidharth...@...>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Sat, June 26, 2010 4:20:10 AM
> Subject: [amibroker] Re: New 3rd party toolset for AmiBroker
>
>
> I have the hilbert oscillator & sine wave already coded in AFL if anyone
> wants them...
>
> --- In [email protected], "WiseStockTrader" <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 <see3d@> 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
