Intra-day (All Sessions) Bars 6.1 vs. 6.02

[bpschultz]

Please refer to the thread at the following link for a description of the problem. I have not taken the time to post new snapshots because the issue was never addressed after I first reported its existence in version 6.03 almost 1 year ago on October 17, 2008.

http://forum.esignalcentral.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28746

Since accurate bars are arguably the most essential component of charting software, I sincerely hope that a fix will be implemented prior to the mandatory migration date on October 26, 2009.

Thank you.

[JayF]

Brian,

I just spot checked SI Z9,120 throughout the week and the data seems to match the 1 minute bars, and that the 120-bars in eSignal. If you have some specific examples you are seeing, I encourage you to post them here (the beta forum is closed to new posts as the beta cycle is over for 6.1.)

Just as a reminder, please also make sure you check the Multi-minute Bars setting to ensure it is in the "Build bars from largest interval" setting, and if you do change the setting, be sure to restart QCharts.

[JayF]

To follow-up, I did get a PM from another community member who was able to duplicate your issue Brian. I'm suspecting that one possible reason that I'm not seeing it is my own local time zone setting, but we'll have to explore this further.

Just an FYI, that this item remains open and is being explored.

[bpschultz]

Thanks, Jay. So you know, I am on Quote.com server time and "building bars from largest interval." If I use the alternate setting for building bars, the problem is far worse and easily visible due to the plethora of gaps between the bars.

[bpschultz]

Jay,

Are you expecting this issue to be resolved in a new release prior to October 26, 2009?

Thanks.

Brian

[JayF]

Brian,

This issue will not be fixed in time before the October 26th date. We are expecting a beta of 6.2 to come out in November that has this bug scheduled to be fixed. The Gold version is slated for early December.

[bpschultz]

So let me get this straight...I will be forced to get off of 6.03 by October 26 for inaccurate bars in a higher release, and the corrections may or may not be properly vetted and corrected by year end?

[tlinetrader]

my understanding is that 6.02 and 6.03 will continue to work the the exception of a couple of features that depend on the continuum feed. Is this correct?

[bpschultz]

Jay,

Whatever happened to the November beta release? Did I miss it?

I sure would like to have an opportunity to review the all sessions chart problems before the next gold release.

Brian

[bpschultz]

Intra-day All Sessions Bars in 6.2

Have the problems with intra-day, all sessions bars in 6.1 that I previously reported been corrected in 6.2?

I would appreciate a response from a QCharts staff member. My most recent attempt at getting a response on this issue was ignored.

Thanks.

[JayF]

Apologies for the long delay in a response. The full release notes on 6.2 can be found in the readme.txt in the QCharts directory. This specific bug has not been corrected yet as the Options Symbology task took much longer than expected. This continues to be on our radar for a future release.

[bpschultz]

Jay,

Will this bug be addressed in a maintenance release of 6.2 or will I be waiting for 6.x to be released?

Brian

[JayF]

This is scheduled to be fixed in QCharts 7 (tentatively 'Q3-Q4, 2010).

[tradertom]

Hey Jay,

I bet you know what I am going to ask for in QC7... Intraday options charting! I would love to see this within the next big release. It is something I used in v5.x and I have missed it.

I want to thank you formally for fixing the index option chains/montages with the latest release! Options pricing seems a bit snappier and less lagging than in past releases for some reason. Anyway, it is so nice to have option bids and asks again. They come much closer to matching my brokers. Thank you Jay and Team! My hat is off and my beer is raised!

Thanks,
Tom

[bpschultz]

Jay,

What is so difficult about making this fix? The problem initially appeared in an early version of 6.0 and was promptly addressed so that 6.02 worked correctly. For some reason, it mysteriously reappeared in 6.1 and was documented on this site in October 2008. You're now suggesting that it will POSSIBLY be addressed 2 years after I first identified the issue in 6.1, but you won't even commit to that timeframe! I find your priorities difficult to comprehend.

Brian