Posted the Sine Wave... just search for John Ehler
--- In [email protected], "Rob" <sidharth...@...> wrote:
>
> I'll post them in the AFL library...
>
> --- In [email protected], "Anthony Faragasso" <ajf1111@> 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 <sidhartha70@>
> > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
