Support Board
Date/Time: Tue, 04 Nov 2025 14:58:03 +0000
Smoothed MA in ACSIL differs significantly from study
View Count: 1101
| [2021-07-18 23:31:00] |
| skellington - Posts: 14 |
|
Hi, I am computing the smoothed MA in my ACSIL study using any of the three following options: sc.SmoothedMovingAverage(sc.Close, subgraph_Smooth, 50); sc.MovingAverage(sc.Close, subgraph_Smooth, MOVAVGTYPE_SMOOTHED, 50); SmoothedMovingAverage_S(sc.Close, subgraph_Smooth, i, 50, 0); All of the above produce the same results (they look close but not exactly like simple-moving-avg 50 period), but they differ significantly from the study in SierraChartStudies_64 "Moving Average - Smoothed." I can easily see the difference by drawing both studies into the main region. Can you tell me why the outputs are different? Thanks. Date Time Of Last Edit: 2021-07-19 02:33:11
|
| [2021-07-19 02:50:13] |
| |
|
We will look this over.
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 |
| [2021-07-19 11:47:02] |
| SC Support Tom - Posts: 450 |
|
We changed the study Moving Average - Smoothed a few years ago. I see that the main study function was changed, but that the function sc.SmoothedMovingAverage() was not. I can make them match. I will get on it today.
|
| [2021-07-19 18:35:09] |
| skellington - Posts: 14 |
|
Awesome thanks! Probably want to update the other routes to smoothed average too, right? :) sc.SmoothedMovingAverage(sc.Close, subgraph_Smooth, 50); sc.MovingAverage(sc.Close, subgraph_Smooth, MOVAVGTYPE_SMOOTHED, 50); SmoothedMovingAverage_S(sc.Close, subgraph_Smooth, i, 50, 0); |
| [2021-07-20 12:44:02] |
| SC Support Tom - Posts: 450 |
|
This is done. In the next release, the functions scsf_SmoothedMovingAverage and sc.SmoothedMovingAverage() will return the same values. WRT Post #4: sc.SmoothedMovingAverage(sc.Close, subgraph_Smooth, 50); sc.MovingAverage(sc.Close, subgraph_Smooth, MOVAVGTYPE_SMOOTHED, 50); SmoothedMovingAverage_S(sc.Close, subgraph_Smooth, i, 50, 0); I made appropriate changes to all references to the Smoothed Moving Average in the code. Date Time Of Last Edit: 2021-07-20 12:44:27
|
| [2021-07-20 13:50:08] |
| SC Support Tom - Posts: 450 |
|
One last note on the opening post: I am computing the smoothed MA in my ACSIL study using any of the three following options: sc.SmoothedMovingAverage(sc.Close, subgraph_Smooth, 50); sc.MovingAverage(sc.Close, subgraph_Smooth, MOVAVGTYPE_SMOOTHED, 50); SmoothedMovingAverage_S(sc.Close, subgraph_Smooth, i, 50, 0); All of the above produce the same results (they look close but not exactly like simple-moving-avg 50 period), but they differ significantly from the study in SierraChartStudies_64 "Moving Average - Smoothed." Please be advised that the study function Moving Average - Smoothed is the correct version. I changed sc.SmoothedMovingAverage() to match that function. Date Time Of Last Edit: 2021-07-20 13:51:51
|
To post a message in this thread, you need to log in with your Sierra Chart account: