Appreciate the response. Speed is not the problem. Understanding why is. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?
Best Regards Rick Osborn ________________________________ From: Rob <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, June 30, 2010 2:41:18 AM Subject: [amibroker] Re: New 3rd party toolset for AmiBroker It's a long time since I coded this, but as recall, this simply can't be done outside of a loop. Because of the specific recursive nature of the algorithm. Anyway, it should be pretty fast 'as is'... if you are having speed issues then use SetBarRequired(100,sbrAll) or something similar... --- In [email protected], "ricko8294_98" <ri...@...> wrote: > > Rob > Thank you for posting this. (Library John Ehler) > I have a general question. > > I tried to translate code from other platforms, and did not succeed. > I note that you placed the greater part of the code in a FOR loop. > This has me confused. > > I thought AmiBroker created arrays automatically, and that loops would not be > required here. > > Why are the loops necessary? > > Hopefully someone can enlighten me > > Rick > > --- In [email protected], "Rob" <sidhartha70@> wrote: > > > > Posted the Sine Wave... just search for John Ehler > > > > --- In [email protected], "Rob" <sidhartha70@> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
