- ago
...thanks!
How can I get the EMA Period in the SymbolInd Clause in the Optimzation Window?

br
ka
0
677
Solved
13 Replies

Reply

Bookmark

Sort
- ago
#1
As usual, you just have to click "Make optimizable":

0
- ago
#2
Thanks Eugene!
2 Points:
1. Whenever I "Make Optimizable" in a SymbolInd clause the Parameter is not visible in the Optimize Window?
2. When I want f. e. "Whenever the Index goes below the EMA 100", do I have to uns the SymbolInd two times; one time for close and one time for EMA?

br
ka
0
- ago
#3
Looks like a bug to me!
0
Glitch8
 ( 9.89% )
- ago
#4
Optimizing the parameters of an indicator that's already a parameter of something like SymbolInd won't be possible, we're going to have to not provide the "Make Optimizable" button in these cases, thanks for the report!
0
Best Answer
- ago
#5
.....well, how do I optimize the clause "Exit whenever the Index xxx goes below his EMA yyy"?
This was possible with the old Indicator Symbol?

Thanks!
ka
0
- ago
#6
Here's a workaround. You could open a C# coded strategy and tweak the code, exposing parameters for optimization.
0
- ago
#7
well, I think many users would appreciate this functionality without c# programming.
br
ka
0
- ago
#8
I also find that the Indicator Symbol doesn't deserve to be removed. SymbolInd imposes a learning curve on the new user of the product i.e. make extra steps to understand why external symbols may be "not supported" in Blocks, how to work around it, where to look for the SymbolInd (whose naming might not necessarily seem self-descriptive to them)..

On the other hand, the qualifier block was new user-friendly and instantly available w/o a learning curve. Just my two cents.
0
Glitch8
 ( 9.89% )
- ago
#9
Let’s restore the Qualifier for Build 30. And I agree it would of course be beneficial to allow optimizing parameters of SymbolInd’s indicators. But it will require more work to get this recursive feature implemented, so we will need a #FeatureRequest.
1
- ago
#10
I understand.
One Question: Can I use the old Indicator Symbol functionality; are the results correct?
br
ka
0
- ago
#11
@Glitch: Thanks for restoring!
br
ka
0
Glitch8
 ( 9.89% )
- ago
#12
Yes, they should still be correct.
0
- ago
#13
Build 30 is great!!
Thank you!
br
ka
2

Reply

Bookmark

Sort