Support Board
Date/Time: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 02:40:01 +0000
[Locked] - Sierra Chart Does Not Recommend CQG (Various Reasons)
View Count: 29958
| [2019-10-18 07:51:32] |
| |
|
The below information is dated, and makes reference to the Sierra Chart TT based order routing service which has been discontinued. It has been replaced with the Teton order routing service which has direct CME connectivity and no transaction fees: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing ---- We hear about so many problems with CQG with connectivity, that we are not recommending people use it any longer. Unless you are happy with the problems. We also have a notice here about this: CQG Trading Platform Service Now we have a new order routing service which is documented here: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing (Update: Link updated to Teton) This is based upon TT order routing. There was an incident on the TT side in August 2019 with order routing but that has not repeated itself. Since then the Sierra Chart order routing service has worked very well for our users using it, since August 2019. We really have had enough of the CQG problems. We do not want to be bothered with CQG connectivity problems any longer. We are always very respectful to users. Now the ultimate solution is the direct routing we are working on at this time to the CME. This is going to be a very high quality and redundant connection. This is all going to be handled in the Aurora data center, through our technology provider, which handles high-frequency and ultralow latency trading. And this is something we are going to begin to offer in the coming months and that is going to bypass CQG and TT and others for CME CBOT NYMEX and COMEX trading. This is part of our unified order routing model we are working on. We are very excited to get this out as soon as possible. Now we will continue to support TT order routing as well and CQG order routing if you want to use those. Those will always remain. We have had enough of the problems because they make us look bad and they take our time and they hurt users, and this is why we are developing direct routing to the exchanges. And we are not even going to charge a per contract fee if you trade something like under 50 contracts a-month. We will come up with the exact number at some point. So you will pay a fee of nothing as compared to as much as $0.30 per contract per side that others charge. After you are trading a certain number of contracts we do expect a fee of .05USD per contract. ---- The latest incident is someone asking us to pay them >$10,000 for a loss, for CQG lagging data and connectivity issues. In regards to this type of claim, refer to: Sierra Chart License Agreement: Explanation of No Liability In this particular case, we receive something like less than 15 USD/month for that user and the broker is receiving something like $1000 in trading fees a month. And we are being burdened with this problem. This is nothing more than nuts to say the least. Absolute nuts. And yes if the customer wants us to look into it. We are going to charge for it and they must pay! If they do not want to pay, they can just leave. This is not worth our time at all. You users, need to face hard reality. So sorry, we have had enough with CQG and we are not recommending it any longer, and we are not saying that our order routing service at this point in time is the absolute best because it is based on TT and TT does have issues, but it does offer advantages. And we are working to remedy this problem with our own order routing direct to the exchange. And this is not the first time this is happened. There have been two other incidents where people are asking us to pay for losses because of substandard CQG services. First of all it is absolutely nuts to be even be asking us for that. And completely and totally out of bounds and inappropriate and you should know that. We should have never supported the CQG data feed. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2022-04-05 23:02:56
|
| [2020-01-13 16:04:46] |
| |
|
We have another reported trading incident with CQG where someone is asking for money. In this case they lost the connection to CQG, which caused the target and stop orders, to not be sent. There is not support for server-side bracket orders with CQG because they do not work properly with CQG. Since CQG does not have proper support for server-side bracket orders we recommend using this service: Sierra Chart / Trading Technologies Futures Order Routing Service This is what the user told us: I did what i'm supposed to do relying on your platform knowing that you're a company that values it's credibility or this what I thought! Now you can see why it is we dislike CQG. If you are trading CME markets, we are 100% not recommending CQG at all. We discourage its use.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2020-01-13 21:13:13
|
| [2020-01-13 16:29:49] |
| |
|
Post #1 has been updated with our current view of the TT order routing service. It has proven to be very reliable now for many months. It solves CQG connectivity problems also solves the problem of not having server-side bracket order support when using CQG. Server-side bracket orders are supported when using the TT based Sierra Chart order routing service.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2020-01-13 16:31:06
|
| [2020-01-14 18:30:56] |
| |
|
Further to this, the CQG Web API server was down for 25 minutes earlier this morning. We do not understand why they do not have redundancy with multiple servers and/or network connectivity. If this exists, certainly it was not available during this time.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2020-01-14 18:45:38
|
| [2020-01-15 23:23:56] |
| |
|
Another reason we dislike CQG. We just got this from them: Microsoft and CQG are Stopping Support of Windows 7 Microsoft is retiring Windows 7 in January 2020. Once retired, Microsoft will no longer provide operating system updates. We are asking that all customers upgrade to Windows 10 to stay secure. For more information visit microsoft.com The fact that they are affiliating themselves with Microsoft and this damn decision to drop support for Windows 7, their best operating system really just tells us that CQG does not recognize quality and stability. Update: Reaffirming what we said above. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2020-06-12 21:22:37
|
| [2020-06-12 21:19:17] |
| |
|
We are bringing this back up to the top of the board because we have another reported issue with CQG from a user that came through a ticket, where CQG provided an incorrect fill price for a treasury futures contract, and there was also a position reporting issue. These are not Sierra Chart problems but these problems relate to the CQG service itself. We just want to go into a brief technical discussion about the "incorrect fill price": More specifically what likely happened is that the "raw integer" price failed to get adjusted to the true price due to an issue with the security definition data from CQG. This is something we have discussed with CQG. We think it relates to a problem in one of the protocol buffer messages And we did do a small code change to work around it and we also want to update to the latest protocol buffer Definition files from CQG but we have difficulty with those.
Update: We had a further look into this, and there is a field called correct_price_scale in the contract metadata from CQG. The pricing problem relates to this. When users were getting incorrect market data that was not adjusted using this price scale variable, it was because we were checking to see if that variable was set using a Google protocol buffer library function. CQG says that this variable is always set and there is no need to check if it is set. So we took that check out which should not have failed anyway but apparently was. And we also see that check exists for order prices as well so we are taking that out for order/trading prices and that will be out in version 2122. We do hear about CQG Trade Position Quantity reporting problems from time to time, they are rare but they do happen. You should then see the correct position usually by reconnecting to the data feed. The positions might also be corrected by selecting Trade >> Refresh Trade Data from Service but we would have to see if that would have an effect in the case of CQG. We recommend that users use the Sierra Chart order routing service if they are trading the CME group of exchanges: Sierra Chart / Trading Technologies Futures Order Routing Service Another problem we have with CQG is the latest protocol buffer definition files do not even compile properly in our Visual C++ project without generating errors that we have never seen before. And we know this is not very descriptive because we do not want to go into technical details but the ultimate point we are trying to make is the CQG Web API protocol definition files have become far too large and complex. If you are trading the CME group of markets we simply do not recommend using CQG and we recommend the Sierra Chart order routing service instead: Sierra Chart / Trading Technologies Futures Order Routing Service We have invested a lot in the service, and we have multiple servers for redundancy, and also use a direct Cross Connect to TT: Sierra Chart Order Routing Service to Trading Technologies(TT) Cross Connect The Sierra Chart order routing service would not be affected by incorrect fill prices because there is no price translation required. In many cases, but not in the case of treasury futures there is a price multiplier used but this is not something which leads to any type of problem. If the price multiplier is not set correctly on the Sierra Chart side, then you just simply correct it. There would not be incorrectly logged fill price because there is never any translation of the prices. And finally, the reason why it is we are working towards a unified model of order routing is in order to provide a high-quality level of service and reliability for our user base. It makes completely no sense for us to be supporting so many different services. This is just simply downright inefficient and illogical. And it is also so inefficient and illogical that all of our competitors are doing the same dumb thing. Does it make sense that bookmap and Jigsaw, and others are integrating to all these different services with all these different problems and all these different APIs. No, it is extremely inefficient and illogical. This is why we established the DTC Protocol: https://www.dtcprotocol.org/ Also, we did discuss with jigsaw about interfacing to the DTC protocol server. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2020-06-14 23:48:45
|
| [2020-11-25 16:39:59] |
| |
|
More CQG data issues: urgent: last MES candle is distorted (Faulty CQG data!) Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2020-11-25 16:40:06
|
| [2021-02-04 13:15:08] |
| |
|
Further confirmation why we do not recommend CQG: https://www.sierrachart.com/SupportBoard.php?ThreadID=60202 First of all it is highly improper for the user to be saying what they are saying, and dumping all of this problem on us. This is just simply completely wrong. This is completely improper to be wasting our time on this stuff. This really is wrong for anyone to be faulting us, for the issue they have. We have no control over how the CQG system behaves or how their account is configured by their broker. Although this is not even really a CQG specific issue. Although it is more likely to occur with CQG based upon what we know of the behavior of that system. Sierra Chart gives you options to control things the way you want. And furthermore, by default things will work in such a way, which is going to be overall the best fit based upon the behavior of external services. They are going out of their way, to wrongly a show that somehow Sierra Chart has some problem with flattening a position or somehow has a problem with indicators which is completely false in both cases. What is the purpose of all of this. This is just wasting our time. When we should be focusing our time, on our own direct CME and EUREX order routing. This is why, we work hard to provide a single unified solution to do things right. The biggest waste of our time, is on CME market data policy. This is really just insane. There are more compensation requests, regarding CQG than any other service. Probably Interactive Brokers is second. Also refer to: Sierra Chart License Agreement: Explanation of No Liability Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2021-02-05 01:55:48
|
| [2021-02-04 17:36:05] |
| |
|
Regarding post #9, and the thread we linked to. We have some additional comments about this. Based upon our experience with CQG, the way they do their margin calculations makes this problem more likely to occur and it did occur in this particular case. For example, in the case of when using a server-side bracket order from CQG, the target and stop orders require two times margin instead of one time. We have seen this. So this definitively is a CQG specific issue. In the case of the Sierra Chart risk management used with our simulated futures trading service and our upcoming direct order routing, this problem of a market order getting rejected when closing a position, would not occur. It simply should not occur, because it is reducing risk. Not increasing it. Let us explain how the margin calculations are done in a scenario like this. What we do, is calculate the MaximumPotentialPositionQuantity. This considers, the current position quantity, working order quantities, and market orders which are orders which are very likely to fill immediately. Let us say there is a +1 Position. There is a Sell Target and Stop order each with a quantity of 1. Since these are in an OCO group, they are considered to have a quantity of 1. With the above, MaximumPotentialPositionQuantity will equal 1. Meaning that based upon the current position, and the current working orders, the maximum position quantity whether actual or potential is 1. When there are instructions to flatten the position, which include instructions to cancel the Target and Stop order and also a Sell market order of quantity 1, MaximumPotentialPositionQuantity will still equal 1. The worst outcome of this is this will create a short position of 1. This would happen, if both the sell market order fills, and the Target or Stop order fills before they are canceled. Therefore, the required margin remains the same. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2021-02-05 01:31:57
|
| [2021-02-05 06:57:26] |
| |
|
To give users an idea of how much order flow we currently handle through the Sierra Chart Order Routing Service, for the month of January 2021, we processed 316,000+ individual order fills. So for example, an order with a quantity of 5 which fills results in a fill of 5. The only complaint that we have is with account balances not updating frequently enough and we know about that but that is out of our control for the time being until we have our own direct routing released. And we know this has taken some time. If we did not take so much time on this Support Board that will be have been done by now. We are also adding support for the Position Average Price field on the Trade Orders window and it has been released on Server 5. We will get the rest of the servers updated over the weekend except possibly for Server 2 which we may wait until another week for. If you want reliable server-side bracket orders, which are managed in a super low latency environment, the Sierra Chart Order Routing Service is what you want to use. This is not offered with CQG. For all of the features, refer to: Sierra Chart / Trading Technologies Futures Order Routing Service Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2021-02-05 07:00:09
|
| [2021-02-05 16:01:19] |
| |
|
Someone else just posted in this thread: Notice: Replacement for CBOE Indices Historical Daily Data about a CQG order routing issue. And seem to be blaming it on the Denali data feed which they are not even using and which would be irrelevant anyway. Or blamed it on Sierra Chart. This is just not acceptable. There are not any problems with the integration Sierra Chart has to CQG order routing. You cannot just wildly make these claims, without a proper investigation of the issue. There can be numerous causes none of which would be any problem with the integration Sierra Chart has to CQG. The trading integration, has been very stable for many years. This issue could have even been a CQG connectivity issue. Could have even been some operating system level issue. Anyway, the posts were deleted because they simply were just complaining and not making any proper request and they were posting in the wrong thread. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2021-02-07 09:58:47
|
| [2021-03-10 18:32:10] |
| |
|
We are bringing this up to the top of the board because we want to make it clear Sierra Chart does not provide technical support for CQG real-time or historical data. Please do not post technical problems on this board, regarding CQG market data. You will need to ask your broker for help with that. If you want high quality and reliable and proper data for Sierra Chart you need to use the Denali Exchange Data Feed: Denali Exchange Data Feed This data feed provides CME Group, and EUREX data. It will also be a requirement in May to use EUREX data from the Denali Exchange Data Feed if you need real-time EUREX data within Sierra Chart. There is a massive difference in speed and completeness and reliability, between historical data provided by Sierra Chart as compared to CQG with Sierra Chart providing the better quality service. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2021-03-12 17:25:53
|
| [2021-03-18 02:38:32] |
| |
|
The removal of Sierra Chart provided historical data for CQG has placed a lot of extra support burden on us. And has caused users a lot of difficulties and frustrations. It is quite sad when users write up all these posts taking their time and our time, describing CQG data limitations and issues thinking it is a Sierra Chart issue. And how many more problems go unreported. It is certainly fair to say, that we created that problem. However, we discontinued historical data for CQG and Interactive Brokers for good reason. And people can see CQG for what it is now (although that is not the reason why). Certainly one reason among numerous other reasons we did remove it for Interactive Brokers is because we sure as hell are not going to make Interactive Brokers look good, and have people think that quality is from them and not us. For all of the reasons, refer to: Jan 1, 2021 Changes to Historical Data: Interactive Brokers, CQG We expect in July 2021 Sierra Chart will remove support for CME data through CQG. If you want to use CQG for trading the CME Group markets you will need to use the Denali Exchange Data Feed for CME Group data. Also there really is no consequence to removing support for CME data through CQG and requiring it to be used from the Denali Exchange Data Feed. The extra cost for the Denali Data Feed is minimal at this time and we will look into lower pricing before the change, although this depends upon how inflation goes though. And then you just pay the exchange fee through to Sierra Chart along with the cost of Sierra Chart. This is all. And then you have a superior trouble-free data feed. It should not be expected that we would support CQG CME and EUREX data when we already have our own high-quality data feeds. Sierra Chart has high standards, we want to provide users the best quality of data and the best service, reduce our support load, and have things work well in Sierra Chart for users. And have consistency in the charts and the data among our Sierra Chart users. Since Sierra Chart has high standards, and we want things to work well, it makes completely no sense for us to continue to support CQG data. In the early days of CQG support we had no support at all for CQG data and it was our firm policy at that time not to support CQG data many years ago. There is simply nothing new here in this regard. It is simply following original intentions. Now when we implement this, is still not known. That remains to be determined. And whether we would reduce the price of package 10 or 11, also remains to be determined. But that is very dependent upon inflation. We also have very redundant and high-quality market data infrastructure and we will be expanding upon that, as we add more users to our data feeds. Here is a video demonstrating the speed of the Denali Exchange Data Feed: http://videos.sierrachart.com/DenaliDataFeedSpeed_Video_2021-03-22_144752.webm And we also communicated to a major broker, back around October 2019, our intentions in this regard. That we would be replacing our Standard Service Package, with a new package to be used with CQG for order routing and our data feed, for a price of about 30 USD. That would be the minimum offering. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2021-04-15 20:23:13
|
| [2021-03-30 06:45:26] |
| Sierra_Chart Engineering - Posts: 17218 |
|
Another posting with a user having an issue when using CQG: Postion have been changed without my knowledge. Although it is hard at this time though to tell the exact source of the problem. Now that we see various issues being reported, including issues involving bracket orders and limited fill history for trade statistics, we go back to the very same thing that we have been saying and that is we recommend using the Sierra Chart order routing service instead of CQG: Sierra Chart / Trading Technologies Futures Order Routing Service If the Sierra Chart Order Routing Service is not supported by your broker, then use one that does support it. That remains true to this very moment even considering, the issue that TT had back in February. And we are going to replace TT with our own direct CME order routing. We are also going to be releasing soon, the new Rithmic integration. Once we are well underway with our own direct routing, and we have also the new Rithmic, we may even remove CQG from even being mentioned on this website. This is just not worth it. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, use the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2021-03-30 07:19:00
|
| [2021-04-30 14:05:28] |
| |
|
Another CQG issue getting blamed on us: Order limit cannot cancel Although what the cause of the problem is, is unknown at this time. We would have to see the Trade Activity Log, which was not provided, and even then we would not necessarily know for sure. The idea that somehow there is some problem in Sierra Chart, that was the cause of the issue is flat-out false. We would have to see the Trade Activity Log for more information but they did not provide that. I really hope you can give me a gesture of goodwill for the amount of this loss which is $81 in reimbursement to make me want to trade on Sierra. So now they want us to pay for for their loss, to get them to continue to use Sierra Chart. Completely ridiculous, never going to happen.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2021-04-30 14:06:55
|
| [2021-07-20 03:29:37] |
| |
|
We will be discontinuing support for CME and EUREX data from CQG, most likely in September 2021. And that data must come from the Denali Exchange Data Feed. CQG can still be used for trading. But we will be providing a financial incentive, to move users off CQG, once our direct order routing service is out for CME and EUREX. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2021-07-20 03:30:39
|
| [2021-08-09 06:01:25] |
| |
|
Another thread about why we cannot continue to be burdened with CQG data limitations any longer: 480 minute chart doesn't show history Although the removal of support for CQG CME and EUREX data will not happen abruptly in September. We will implement a more gradual process, from about that time until the end of the year. During this time will be releasing our new direct CME and EUREX order routing. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2021-08-09 06:03:25
|
| [2021-12-16 16:04:07] |
| |
|
Here is another reported problem with CQG: Sierra charts cut off From user: This is not good and i deeply feel that you should do something about it in my favour, weher it's pay back my loss or at least the fees. Has this happened to any one else ?
This CQG thread is a user driven thread. We are just presenting here user problems. Why should we continue to be supporting CQG who is a competitor of ours, when we have our own direct order routing. The answer is we should not! CQG is going to be moved to service package 12 in 2022 and only there for people want to trade Asian exchanges, ICE, or options. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2021-12-25 05:39:50
|
| [2021-12-20 17:12:26] |
| |
|
More CQG connectivity issues: disconnect Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing |
| [2022-01-20 00:42:44] |
| |
|
Why is it, that CQG users, ask for trading losses from Sierra Chart? This is the latest one: My Buy Stop on Gold (GC) at 1832.3 was executed at 1834.8. What happened? I have MBO denali data. My broker is AMP Futures. I had data on Rithmic before and never had problems like this. In denali data, buy stop or sell stop often fill up with a slip of 1-3 tick. But now it was 25 ticks. I am counting on a refund of the lost amount.
This is our response: This entire ticket, shows a lack of understanding about the markets. This is not a Sierra Chart issue at all. It is not anyone's issue. It does not relate to CQG, Rithmic , the Denali data feed or anything like that.
It would be best that you contact the exchange. They then say this: Your data is very slow. Much slower than the Rithmic. I will describe this case on internet forums.
Our response to this, is what is meant by "slow"? And if there is any data lagging issues, this would be due to the Internet, and connectivity, and other conditions. This is the relevant help topic: Prices / Data Falling Behind Does the "slow" refer to the market volatility, and the unwanted fill that they received? We do not know. And we do not think asking the user, is even going to help because we cannot trust the information and it would not be relevant, because we have no control over connectivity. What is their objective here? Are they trying to scare us in order to pay for their loss? Do we really have users, who lack basic intelligence about the functioning of futures markets? It appears so. Do we really have to explain to users, as to why a data feed has no impact at all on fills. You could be using delayed data, and the outcome of a fill will be exactly the same. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2022-01-20 14:42:08
|
| [2022-02-17 02:33:17] |
| |
|
We want to give some other reasons why we do not like CQG. CQG uses what is called Google protocol buffers for the interface, and this clutters the Sierra Chart code base. Google protocol buffers does not clutter the code base. It is the generated code from the protocol buffer definition files from CQG which does. The object code, created from the associated definition files from CQG, constitutes the very largest module within Sierra Chart. This makes no sense at all. Far exceeding, our charting module, which is the largest component in Sierra Chart. Why would we want this within our software. Makes no sense. We have our own order routing and own market data (Teton and Denali). There is no reason to be using CQG unless you want to trade on other exchanges not supported by Teton. Information about the Teton Order Routing Service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing CQG also charges us to use their API. This makes no sense. And then you also pay per trade .10USD per contract. With Teton, you pay nothing. And on top of that you have a superior level of service with Teton. So the choice is clear. Move from CQG to Teton! And there is also a massive difference, in the way that CQG market data is processed, as compared to Sierra Chart data feeds. CQG data is processed on the primary thread of Sierra Chart and the market depth data from CQG is not efficient as compared to the Denali Data Feed due to all the levels being transmitted that the user may not need, and the periodic refreshes. And the market depth data is not acceptable in the way that it is presented and Sierra Chart cannot do proper pulling and stacking calculations. Sierra Chart data feeds like the Denali data feed are processed on a background thread, and there is no decoding of data necessary. The process is much much more efficient. The data already exists in the necessary binary format. Whereas with CQG, this Google protocol buffer function has to be called: ParseFromArray which takes time. And if you are with Ninja trader, or Tradeovate, move your account to a broker that supports Teton. We really do not want you on CQG and we do not want any further questions about connecting to these brokers through CQG. You can find the supported brokers here: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing: Setup Instructions And at some point we would want to remove CQG support altogether within Sierra Chart. We do not know when. But there are various considerations to this. CQG support is likely to be discontinued by Sierra Chart at the end of 2022. There simply is no reason to be using CQG, if you are trading the CME Group markets. You are disadvantaged by using CQG (like not having server-side bracket orders or properly managed OCO orders). We are providing a superior service, and at no additional cost. Whereas CQG is charging for their order routing at .10 per contract per fill. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2022-03-30 13:52:25
|
| [2022-03-21 08:49:18] |
| |
|
We would like to bring attention to our users to post #21, #22, #23 here: Help!! activating Denali feed .. There is a claim that CQG is providing 10 levels of market depth, when a user is paying the top of book exchange fee. So if you pay the entire CME Group top of book exchange fee for approximately 3.50 USD/month you get 10 levels of market depth data when using market data through CQG? We need to know. Please inform us. You can respond directly in the thread we linked above. We have said previously in this thread that we are going to remove support for CME Group data from CQG. And we do intend to do that, in April 2022 in newer versions of Sierra Chart. We also will be removing support for EUREX data as well. When remove support for CQG EUREX data, we will make sure that we have support for EUREX spreads but not options. And we do recommend using the Teton Order Routing Service instead of CQG: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2022-03-21 09:00:21
|
| [2022-04-05 21:11:21] |
| |
|
We strongly advise CQG users to move to our Teton order routing service which is superior, if you are trading the CME Group. One reason we have given repeatedly is the fact that Teton uses full server-side bracket orders and these are not supported by Sierra Chart with CQG. We now have another issue of a large loss being reported to us, through a ticket, and the analysis of this is that the customer lost money because there is not support for server-side bracket orders with CQG due to the improper behavior of those. There simply is no reason to be using CQG! CQG is not recommended for those people trading the CME Group. Information about Teton Order Routing: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing This thread after we have said before is a user driven thread. It is not Sierra Chart trying to make CQG look poorly. We are simply stating the facts. And we want to provide the best service to customers. We simply do not want users at all on CQG if you are trading CME Group. Maybe we should just simply shut off CME completely from CQG. But really our plan is just to remove CQG support entirely from Sierra Chart. There are several reasons why we want to do that. CQG charges us, for API access, not a huge amount of money $500 a month. This is not a big deal to us and is really not a problem at all. But it is rather strange. Although the main reason is that CQG simply cutters our code base and we simply do not want CQG protocol buffer code in Sierra Chart. And the third reason is we just don't want people using CQG if they are trading CME Group and once we have EUREX support, we will absolutely block EUREX trading through CQG. We want our users to have the best solutions. And we invest well in them. But the simple fact is that it really is just simply plain dumb, as to why, we would even be supporting CQG, when we have a superior solutions available for order routing that cost nothing for the users. Just simply plain dumb. Why would we support CQG market data for CME Group or EUREX. It simply makes no sense whatsoever. Why would we support CQG for CME order routing. Once again makes no sense. Get off of CQG please immediately!. We are asking our user base to act in your interest and get off CQG as quickly as possible and if you have to move brokers do that. If you have to move from AMP, do that. Please do it today. But first ask your broker to support Teton. We do not want to get brokers not supporting Teton, unhappy with us. And this also relates to our Transact users and why initially we did not mention the possibility of transitioning from Transact to CQG and staying with Ninja. We do not like that solution. It is nothing about Ninja, but it is because we want to provide you with superior solutions. Obviously we are going to communicate to you what we know is going to be best and save you money. Ninja does not offer that for Sierra Chart users. And this is why we did not initially mention that possibility. We have now added this as a third option now for our Transact user just out of completeness (Staying with Ninja and transitioning from Transact to CQG). But this is not the solution we want you to use! And once again there is no reason to stay with Tradeovate. There is no cost advantage at all to stay with Tradeovate. Other brokers, will give you the same kind of pricing or even save you money. We would also like to share with you this thread, where someone is using CQG and then we respond with our perspective: CQG user experience - from an IT Pro Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2022-04-05 21:59:07
|
| [2022-04-05 22:40:06] |
| |
|
If anyone complains about this thread, we are going to forcefully make our position. And we are going to advertise this heavily. We simply do not recommend CQG at all!!!! This user who had the large loss is now beating up on us in the ticket faulting us for the problem. The problem is they may not fully understand all of the technical reasons for this. And yes we do know, that CQG does support bracket orders, on the server side but they do not work properly which is why Sierra Chart does not support them. And once again why in God's name are we putting up with all of this CQG nonsense? It is complete stupidity. As we go through their activity log, we understand, the details of what is happened. There can be multiple things going on including no fill notice from CQG or the fill came when they lost a connection to CQG. And that goes back to another problem we have pointed to in this thread about connectivity issues with CQG. They lost the connectivity to CQG two times! And when there was a lost connection to CQG, that then means that there is going to be approximately a one minute, perhaps even more, where there actually is a loss of communication to CQG since it takes time, for a lost connection to be detected. We are not dummies. When we say we do not recommend CQG it is for very good reason. And yes we know about the problems with TT. We did work to build a very good service on top of the TT system and we know sometimes TT has had some issues in the past. But still, there was never a failure with server-side bracket orders when we were using TT. At this time, TT has been put behind us and that is no longer being used. Teton is a fully independent order routing service. And we have an absolute superior solution to everything else out there. And now we do have a very good solution. We understand, the position of brokers, of not liking TT and they have a good reason for that. We understand that. We understand that completely. But TT is no longer involved here. We now have a superior solution that costs less than CQG and is superior in all ways. And that superior solution is the Teton Order Routing Service from Sierra Chart. We want the best for our users. And we are investing in another server in the Aurora data center for our Teton order routing. This has a very significant expense to us . So we are investing heavily in Teton. And we still do not charge anything for this service and give our users ultralow latency connectivity colocated with the CME in the Aurora Data center in Illinois. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2022-04-05 23:21:49
|
To post a message in this thread, you need to log in with your Sierra Chart account: