Support Board
Date/Time: Mon, 03 Mar 2025 22:15:09 +0000
Can some CQG/AMP users get by a while with prior version & worse data?
View Count: 892
| [2021-06-06 19:48:26] |
| User791263 - Posts: 151 |
|
Edited: Corrected Title (Name) Recently & 2 years ago, we were told upgrades to 64-bit (various big revisions over 20 months) would not be required. Your revision of recalculation around V2008 caused my good-running V1991 to be unusable (constant recalc), although I have no circular references. V1991 does no recalculation after about 4 passes briefly during start up. My posts on my problem went unanswered, except to be told by SC on 2021-03-21 that upgrade would (might?) not be required if the Billing email was correct, for notification matches: In your post AMP + Sierra Chart | Post: 258289 you said "No it is because we need to make sure that users have entered their own email address on their Sierra Chart account they are using which was provided by a broker. In many cases it is not their own email. Newer versions of Sierra Chart require your own email address be set on your account to login. If you tell us your Sierra Chart account name, we can prevent the update requirement." Billing email was corrected- works fine." V1991 runs well on Win7 64-Pro. Reliable, fast. Are you changing what you said as to whether V2268+ must be installed, or is that only if feed is changed for historical? 2 times I detailed the recalc problem due to V2008 revised recalculation method. You say no one had the problem. I DID. Nobody has the fine timing requirements I have, a heavy-demand complex 47-chart funnel system with delicately-timed and staggered calculation times (on 1-sec feed interval). I explained again in post: AMP + Sierra Chart | Post: 258357 And never heard back. We respectfully urge SC to not "Improve" things that work fine... seldom a good idea. Can we just solve my problem so I can stay on V1991 or upgrade? By "difficult" upgrades, I meant upgrades have been "difficult" for me with heavy requirements (Shouldn't you pay attention to failures in heaviest (but almost-no-custom DLL) requirements)? Occasionally, you misunderstand me. Can't you find a simple solution that could also help other users? Such as: a) allowing a current version be a server feed to prior versions back to about V1950 (lets me stay on V1991). I urged this twice about 2 years ago; That almost worked-- an SC engineer believed it could work (did work partly, but I could not get an answer on server settings). or b) an option to disable recalculation where there is no need at all, as on mine (let's me upgrade). With staggered odd-number calc intervals, the average time between charts is small, though over 20 charts require 270+ msec calc time each. (Recalculation simply won't work- causes massive overload.) I need to be able to turn it off. c) write a couple of small patches for broker/CME handshake/approval of historical... to apply to (2?) older protocols versions back to V1960 range; Use a separate download link; user runs patch on active older SC instance. Options to disable unwanted features for most users who don't do inside bar/tick, or need microsecond times.. might be preferred by many (I realize those might be too integral to disable). We mostly left you alone during your 20+ months of major revisions; Can you just help a bit, now that you have $$ coming in? ---- EDITED:[minor corrections] Correction re Title above: Seems like you said (if not promised) as a CQG/AMP user I could stay on the old version with CQG/AMP for a while, if no feed changes were made. Hopefully I did not misunderstand. I read your comparative historical intraday feed details, brokers vs SC, titled "Jan 1, 2021 Changes to Historical Data: Interactive Brokers, CQG" of 2020-11-07 through 2021-04-21. Your post #4 clarifies for AMP/CQG users not interested in tick data, historical, EUREX nor Continuous contracts: Jan 1, 2021 Changes to Historical Data: Interactive Brokers, CQG | Post: 242248 Posts 7+ seem to say we can "get by"with CQG historical with AMP, as slow, limited (but free to us). I don't need historical intraday backfill over 30 minutes back (outage) and start up- slow is OK. For emergencies, I use CQG browser or AMP trading desk. I note your warning that glitches will eventually occur; I'd like to wait till then. Apparently upgrade to V2268+ as the message says may not be immediately required if no feed changes (and accepting poor data)? 32-bit versions are not supported- need no support, as steady as a rock with fast live feed. Date Time Of Last Edit: 2021-06-08 03:07:31
|
| [2021-06-08 02:48:05] |
| User791263 - Posts: 151 |
|
Update FYI: Today 2021-06-07, V1991 ran well/ adequately for me (1 sec feed interval). I could see, as you explained, your DTC feed was not supplementing CQG data. Behavior seemed almost identical to before, except that on disconnect from CQG, data did not continue to trickle in as before. We appreciate your points: that your backfill is 5 times faster, better, further back, etc.. I here confirm AMP/CQG does run; This can buy time for users to figure out changes and recompiles. I will be looking into your feeds more, later. Please don't single me out as trouble; I simply have a complex system with finely-tuned timing settings that will not run past V2008. |
| [2021-11-17 03:17:40] |
| |
|
Are there any further questions here? There was a lot in that first post and we did not yet have time to go over it at the time and we understand now you are on the current version having no performance issues?
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: