Support Board
Date/Time: Sun, 22 Dec 2024 11:27:06 +0000
Logical comparison functions in Alerts not using full precision
View Count: 1101
| [2015-06-22 01:03:41] |
| FFTrader - Posts: 180 |
|
Can I request the logical comparison functions in Alert Conditions to use full precision and not the precision specified in the "Format" setting? Currently, it is using the Format's setting. For example, the CL futures contract has 2 decimal places and the logical comparisons of the alert functions are limited to what is specified in the Format section of a study within the CL futures. I had to use maximum precision in the Format section to ensure the logical comparisons to work properly. |
| [2015-06-22 18:07:43] |
| |
|
The Value Format that applies is for each individual main price graph or study used in the calculation. So if you are comparing the CL price to a Moving Average value and you want a greater precision for the Moving Average, then increase the number of decimal places for the Value Format setting for the Moving Average. So you should be able to accomplish what you need in this way. 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 |
| [2015-06-23 18:12:39] |
| FFTrader - Posts: 180 |
|
The Value Format that applies is for each individual main price graph or study used in the calculation.
So if you are comparing the CL price to a Moving Average value and you want a greater precision for the Moving Average, then increase the number of decimal places for the Value Format setting for the Moving Average. So you should be able to accomplish what you need in this way. Yes, I can use the above method - in theory. However, I have 2 concerns: 1. I have noticed that I cannot - or quite a tedious task in order to - determine how many digits I need in order to match a study's calculations in order to be consistent with what is being plotted. For example, the "colour change by slope" option is using full / maximum precision (as far as I can tell) and thus a study can have subtle change and the colour will change in the plot on the screen. However, in order for an alert to identify the same "colour change", it requires enough precision. The above method would mean that I have to try a precision and increase it should a precision is not reflected in a logical comparison. The task above itself would be a one time thing but it is nonetheless a disconnect between what is plotted and what is logically compared (in an alert). Currently, I use the maximum precision available to mitigate the issue. 2. Also, when I use maximum precision in the value format box, I have one less item to deal with if I put my setup on another instrument with different amount of decimals / fractions. Before I noticed this issue, I used the "inherited" option in the value format. Now, I just use the maximum precision in the value format selection box. As such, if you can have maximum precision inside the calculations AND the alerts' logical comparisons - while the value format is only limited to how many digits are displayed (on the y-scale, on chart value labels, etc.), it will be ideal. Date Time Of Last Edit: 2015-06-23 18:20:54
|
| [2015-06-24 09:56:52] |
| |
|
We will see about adding an option to support this. It must be an option. This cannot be the usual way the formula evaluation works because it will lead to unexpected results and cause far more issues than solving. 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 |
| [2015-08-15 04:25:39] |
| FFTrader - Posts: 180 |
|
We will see about adding an option to support this.
It must be an option. This cannot be the usual way the formula evaluation works because it will lead to unexpected results and cause far more issues than solving. Thank you for adding the above option. However, when included in a collection set of SAVED studies, the option does not retain its checked status when saved, can you please also allow the option status to be saved please? |
| [2015-08-16 08:59:21] |
| |
|
We are checking on this.
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 |
To post a message in this thread, you need to log in with your Sierra Chart account: