Announcement

**Echelon** · 10-10-2003, 08:54 PM

Empty time slots

Yes, that description of the issue is very helpful for understanding the basis for the problem.

Of course that leads to the obvious question of whether or not this is "empty time slot" issue is being addressed to remedy the line warpage problem.

Do you know if your technical staff is looking into a recoding of this in the next release? It does seem to be a significant issue, and one that affects all users of trend lines. What is the most problematic is that most people probably don't even know it's happening, perhaps until they erroneously rely on a trendline for a trade entry/exit.

David

**JayF** · 10-13-2003, 07:42 AM

This is a difficult issue to address from within eSignal. I know this certainly won't be in eSignal 7.5. As far as the 8.x series, it is likely too early to tell.

**fabrizio** · 10-14-2003, 12:19 AM

Echelon

I'v thoroughfully replicated your problem during those weeks according to your indicattions and constructing polygons over the different parallels in order to see what the skew -if any. was .

The results despite the fact that the video card may highly help are the following ( postable in x N° of Chartings)

If lines do not move from any TF to other PROVIDED THAT YOU DO NOT TOUCH TRHEM IN THE LOWEST TF .

tHEY ARE OLID FIRM AS A ROCK.

IF AND ONLY IF YOU TOUCH ON A LOWER TF ( IE 1 MIN) THE line , ONCE REISSUED TO A HIGHER TF SOME TIMES drift FOR THE VERY SIMPLE REASONS EXPLAINED TO YOU BY ESIGNAL.
And IMHO is a logical reason. Not a BUG. Or at least in my full ignorance I would not call it a Bug.

Those are my outcome and with a very honest approach the problems arise Just in that case and is not due (in this case) to the Video card.

I learned from this one think: I do not issue a Support on 60 minutes, than go to a lower frame and touch that support and than reissue on the 60 min.
Why? Because I try to stay put with the highets precision ( zoom) when I draw the support min the higher TF, so no need to touch the line in 1 min TF.

**Echelon** · 10-14-2003, 02:26 PM

A bug or not.

I appreciate your continued research into this issue, and your findings as posted here.

However, whether you want to define this problem as a "bug" or simply an enormous oversight in programing, is a matter of semantics. It is a vital issue, if for no other reason than the fact that most people probably do not know it exists, and may be using erroneous trend lines for their trading.

To have a sophisticated charting software with this basic flaw should be unacceptable to anyone paying for the service.

I have been a user of Advanced GET's software for many years, and that software did not have this issue when going from weekly to daily, or from daily to hourly, and I don't think it's too much to require the same from Esignal.

You are cutting them far too much slack, in my opinion.

David Smith

**gspiker** · 10-14-2003, 04:04 PM

I have to agree with Echelon here. Even if it is working as intended and is not a "bug" as such, it is still an issue. Note that it is not an issue with just users of trend lines, but have deeper implications than that.

The bottom line is that the software is giving erroneous results in places where a normal user wouldn't expect there to be any problems.

The question that is hard to quantify is how many users are being hit by this. As Echelon points out, some users may not even know they are having this problem. But even if it is just a few the issue is serious enough that I would hope eSignal would devote energy into fixing it. It isn't as glamerous as new features, but it might end up saving some of their customers a lot of money and agrivation.

I'm a huge eSignal fan, and I'm sure that they will do the right thing here, they always have in the past.

Garth

**fabrizio** · 10-15-2003, 03:18 PM

David, Garth

I'm Honestly verified the David problem and honestly admitted that It was not due to a video card conflict.

I cannot say if on my AGET stand alone the problem was the same, I'v never tried the procedure suggested by David on the Stand Alone.

The explanations of why happens given to us by esignal seems like a logical explanation and unfortunately I cannot comment it: I mean I do not know (due to my lack of tech. knowledge) if there is the possibility to fix it or not

Since I'm a fan too of this Corp. I believe that if the answer is positive they will do it.

Again honestly speaking I see no reason why they shouldn't.

**Echelon** · 10-15-2003, 07:55 PM

Is this an issue that needs urgent attention?

Well, by the looks of the number of viewings of this post (as of this writing more users have read this thread than any other on this section of the board), I would say that's an excellent poll of what matters to users.

In the next edition it would serve Esignal well to use this data as a heads up on the priority of what their customers want from the software. It certainly isn't the only thing, but it's good customer data.

David

**fabrizio** · 10-16-2003, 12:55 AM

Echelon

Do not misinterpret my previous post.

The fact that I recognized that was not due to a video card fault does not means other things.

First of all:

Since so far you did not considered statistically significant the results of this BB , now I do not understand why you flag this thread "high?"number of readings like an example of how good and right you were.
Please explain the contradiction in terms .
Or one or the other.

AMOF The partial fault ( semantic discussion aside), the statistical relevance of the complaint is STILL unweightable and has been clearly stated a momentarely solution:
DO NOT TOUCH THE LINE ISSUED IN A HIGH TF AND REISSUED IN A VERY LOW TF .
AGAIN LINES STAYS PUT SOLID ROCK FOR YEARS WERE THEY ARE UNLESS YOU DO NOT TOUCH THEM IN A VERY LOWER TF: SEMANTICALLY OR NOT , SINCE THERE IS A VERY EASY WAY TO OVERCAME THE PROBLEM FOR THE TIME BEING, THIS IS A PARTICULARITY OF THE PROGRAM, NOT A BUG.

FERRARI or LAMBORGHINI cars did not used synchronized mesh gear for almost 40 years, whilst even a manual PINTO had it.
Would you call it A bug?. I do not.

I perfectly know that this corp listen carefully to their customers complaint and adjust the problems - or requests, not even problems but what the majority of the end user request to be- daily.

So no needs to to "Heads up": they - AFAIK- already have big antennas always on: and in terms of antennas you - ECHELON- should be very updated .

Consequently I do not dare myself to tell the top dogs of this company WHAT THEIR PRIORITIES ARE. In the very firsts moment in which I will be not satisfied anymore with This service I shall simply CHANGE PLATFORM.
Though Will be Hard time , since there is no alternatives at this level ( BTW I AM AN EX CQG for the nice fee of 2000-2400€ per month)

As we used to say in Rome : Nun t'allarga'

**Echelon** · 10-21-2003, 09:16 AM

Your opinion

You'll excuse me if I ignore your opinion from here on out. If I had followed your "logic" I would have a new video card along with the hassle and expense, and I would still have the "bug" to deal with as well.

My opinion may not be statistically significant in the strictest sense, but if Esignal waits around for that hard data to make a simple common sense business decision about dealing with a vital software problem, then you won't have to worry about moving to an alternative software, there will be plenty around to choose from.

Stop debating me on semantics and giving me your nonesensical rational for sloppy programing. The problem still exists, has been identified as pervasive, and has not been remedied by Esignal at this time. Period.

David

**fabrizio** · 10-21-2003, 02:51 PM

Re: Your opinion

>You'll excuse me if I ignore your opinion from here on out.
Formally Excused

>If I had followed your "logic" I would have a new video card along with the hassle and expense, and I would still have the "bug" to deal with as well.
Right, but my logic works and I simply found a loop. You still complaining. And wasting your time

>My opinion may not be statistically significant in the strictest sense,
It is, for myself when you became harsh. I doubt it is insignificant for Esignal since they strongly care of their customer opinion and advice.

>but if Esignal waits around for that hard data to make a simple common sense business decision about dealing with a vital software problem, then you won't have to worry about moving to an alternative software, there will be plenty around to choose from.
Is it really?

>Stop debating me on semantics
Why' ? I have a garden of semantic and I sprinkle it every evening. It relax me .

>and giving me your nonesensical rational for sloppy programing.
Maybe is nonsensical, but I got the loop. You don't.
For what concern the "sloppy" well , res ipsa loquor.

>The problem still exists, has been identified as pervasive, and has not been remedied by Esignal at this time. Period.

I suggest you a good reading "HUME VARIATIONS" by Jerry A. Fodor, Oxford University Press. You will have great benefit by reading it.

Cordially

**Echelon** · 10-21-2003, 07:08 PM

Fabrizio...

Well, since you want to take the ad hominim approach to my simply pointing out the current defectiveness in Esignal's software--as a good customer who has a vested interest in getting it to work right for me--and since you do so by referring me to read a philosophical text on personality and the human mind (as if any of this nonsense has anything to do with running a good business) perhaps you should indeed read "In Search of Excellence" by Tom Peters. It certainly is more relevant to this context. This will be my last post directly to you as it's a waste of mine and everyone else's time.

David

**fabrizio** · 10-22-2003, 12:15 AM

Echelon

In search of Excellence has been read by myself in 1982 , while you still were probably plaiyng with J. Joe or frisbee.
Furthermore Tom peters had been our guest in 900 Minnesota Str., SFO.

Son, Even if I'm only 46 I'm too old for you.

But leave out ESIGNAL from this and remain- if you deem so- debating on your words, approach to problems, and pesristence : very stiff and inflexible IMHO.

Furthermore you take the liberty to call someone else "sloppy" : this is not polite son, not polite at all.
I'v never offended anyone and never will in more than 800 post inthis BB.

MR · 10-22-2003, 06:05 AM

.

Originally posted by fabrizio Son, Even if I'm only 46 I'm too old for you.

I am 45.

**GDAVIS01** · 11-20-2004, 07:29 AM

Update to this issue?

I am curious as to what if anything has been corrected with this issue - it has been a year since this post was active.
Graham Davis

Announcement

"Warped" trend lines

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment