MultiCharts Project Management Timeline

hello

One of the biggest problems I have, is discerning the "risk" of a trade, before entering it. I would love to know in advance, if its going to be: 1:1, 1:2, 0.5:1, etc..

Recently, I saw a video demonstration of another trading platform. they have a very simple, but extremely effetely tool. here is how it works: you click on a price, then two "zones" appertains. one zone represents your "take profit" and one zone your "stop loss". you can change the size of these zones in order to see if the intended trade is worth entering into.I think this tool is probably the MOST important tool a trader needs. I love MULTICHARTS and would love to have it added. (I have an image of this tool, but do not know how to upload it .)

I noticed that when applying an indicator that draws rectangles to data2 of a multiple datastream chart, the starting bar of the rectangle was incorrect. I received no feedback from the Discussion Forum issue that I raised, so I coded an indicator that uses RectangleNew_BN and TL_New_BN to plot objects simultaneously to show the difference between the trend line plot (works properly) and the rectangle plot (plot wrong).

I have sent Henry a workspace which contains two charts, both with two datastreams: Chart 1)the 10 point is Data1 and the 5 point is Data2 and Chart 2) the 5 point is Data1 and the 10 point is Data2. The same indicator (PLA also sent to Henry) with the same settings is applied to both charts and in both cases the indicator is set to be based on the 10 point datastream.

The indicator plots correctly on Chart 1 and incorrectly on Chart 2.

it would be highly beneficial to have such a functionality.
This would bring MC ahead of Tradestation which already provides a day session for comming index futures (such as ES.D).

thanks

Hi.

The feature request is that there is a set amount of bars regardless of chart width. The " Bar Spacing " is automatically adjusted with the chart width, considering the set amount of bars ( resizing the chart width automatically recalculates the indicators in it, to adjust the " Bar Spacing " ). This is a good idea for using the same workspaces on different screens ( I have an iMac 27" and a MacBook Pro 15" ). When taking a chart in fullscreen the same amount of bars is always shown. :)

I hope that this is something that is useful for others too. Please make a vote if you are interested. :)



Best regards,
Johannes Hillestad Baumann

Clearly this is a MAJOR and FUNDAMENTAL flaw in the Project Management system.

Can the software engineers fix this please. Clearly no one is reviewing my post the second it is posted.
It is in fact a BLATANT LIE.

Even worse, I have UNDER REVIEW next to some of my posted bug reports/suggestions that were made YEARS AGO.
How utterly absurd.

I have often commented how flawed the PM system is. Great in concept, but executed with almost bizarre inconsistency.

MC management also have the belief that issues shouldn't fixed unless people vote on it. This is just so wrong.

Only a tiny % of MC owners will ever log onto the PM site regularly, and an even smaller percentage will actually vote.
And you are assuming those people voting actually know what they are talking about.

Seriously, to Management, you guys need to make executive decisions, take responsibility, and code stuff in the order you feel is justified.
Waiting for lots of votes on something is an absolutely horrible way to prioritize things.

Clearly bug fixes should take priority.

You need to take into consideration overall usability of the program. When you keep adding adhoc requests etc, what you can often end up with years down the road is a complete mish-mash software, that isn't logical or usable.

So if a person makes a request, its important to consider whether other people are making similar or slightly different requests, and take the time to build it all into a singular package that fits in nicely and makes sense. I'm sure you do this already.

Wealth-Lab when owned by its original German developer also had a website based project management site, and it worked beautifully. When I bough MC years ago, I saw the same with you guys. But as the years went by, I discovered the PM was failing in so many different ways. I made these points to you guys multiple times over the years, but it just seems to fall on deaf ears. Ultimately, if things persist unchanged, there is a possibility MC will go the way of Tradestation, where people just give up on it and move to a different platform. MT4 and Ninjatrader have already zoomed past by a couple of magnitudes. Although being free is a factor here. But MC is the superior program.

Anyway just sharing some though when I saw the UNDER REVIEW appear as soon as I posted an issue today. Please correct it ASAP to some other nomenclature, as clearly the psot wasn't under review. Just as my posts from years ago aren't under review, even though the PM site claims they are.

This issue relates to the dialog box found under Format Signals/Properties/Backtesting/Backtesting Assumptions

Sadly I just lost a long post I made, which seriously annoyed the hell out of me. I will now try to keep the post shorter and to the point.

The "Backtesting Assumptions" dialog box needs to change to 2 choices, as currently it does not do what is intended correctly.

My suggestion is to split it into 2 choices, one relating to BIDS prices (Buys/Short covering) and the other to ASK prices (Shorts & Sells).

Why? I will try to explain. The discussion only relates to LIMIT ORDERS, and is particularly important for forex traders, where the SPREAD is everything.

It is absolutely essential for everyone, including MC support staff and software engineers to understand that Buy and sell orders MUST be treated differently.
When executing buys, it is ONLY the ASK price that is relevant, and when executing sells, it is ONLY the BID price that is important.
Also, appreciate that the vast majority of back testers are only plotting the BID/traded price. We can sometimes add the ask, but in most cases it is simply not needed nor relevant, and only complicates the back testing.

Currently, the 'Fill limit order when trade price goes beyond limit price by' makes the SAME order/fill adjustment for both buys AND sells. THIS IS 100% FLAT OUT WRONG.
Here's why.

When trying to buy at a limit, we need to adjust for 2 things. The spread, and the amount price must exceed our buy limit order to make sure we are reliably filled. This becomes more important the larger our order size is. So for example, let's assume we have a buy order in the EURUSD which has a 6 tick spread @ 1.15250. Now since the plotted price on our screen is the BID, it means we must actually see traded/Bid price drop to 1.15244 or lower to get filled. Currently we can accurately do this via the checkbox under 'backtesting assumptions' Great. So we would put in a value of say 7 (6+1) to make sure we got filled.

Now lets move to sells or shorts. We have a limit order to sell @ 1.15350. This means we only need to see the charted bid/traded price to show 1.15350 to be filled, and perhaps add 1 tick for reliability. But what your back test will in fact show is that you don't get filled because we put in a value of 7, as per the prior paragraph. Price would need to show a value of 1.15357 to be filled. THIS IS 100% FLAT OUT WRONG. All we need is 1.15350 or 1.15351. The only adjustment required is the 1 tick for reliability of fills. This issue gets even worse when dealing with Forex markets that have progressively wider spreads.

I hope everyone can understand what I have explained, and begin to appreciate the PROFOUND importance of getting this right is. I'm actually shocked that we are up to V12 and this has continued unchanged since whatever version it originated in. Perhaps most MC users are futures traders where this is less of an issue.

**I need MC support and their software engineers to fully appreciate this is a serious problem and needs to FIXED ASAP.**

My suggestion is to split the dialog box into 2 choices. One that impacts Buys, and one that impacts sells. These 2 boxes will ALWAYS have different values. Simply because the plotted price is only the BID/trade price. In the FOREX market you will NEVER be filled on a buy at the bid. In the futures markets this is less of an issue, and perhaps why this problem hasn't come to the surface sooner.

If anyone has any further comments, insights, corrections or suggestions, please speak up as soon as possible. And PLEASE Vote to have this corrected, even though the whole concept of voting on a bug fix is utterly absurd.

In the Strategy Report, the Outlier definition currently uses the Average trade and the deviation from it.

I do not understand how this is still the case at V12 of MC when it is clearly wrong.

To discover outlier trades, trades that contribute a greater profit or loss than normal, one MUST use Average WIN and Average LOSS separately.

For those who hadn't given it much thought, here is a quick comparison to highlight how critical it is to get it right.

System 1 has only small wins ($100) and losses ($100)
System 2 has only large wins ($1000) and losses ($1000).
Let's assume both have exactly the same Average Trade of $100.

Currently MC determines an Outlier by reference to the $100 Avg trade. So clearly System 2 has 100% of its trades as outliers, and System 1 has NONE.
CLEARLY ABSURD. Both System 1 and System 2 has precisely ZERO OUTLIERS. Every single trade is precisely in line with the rules for taking a profit or loss.

Traders want to know what % and how many trades resulted in such large profits, that a single trade might have provided way too much of the total profit.
In other words we want to compare trade outcomes to the average trade outcome, not of all trades, but only WINS or only LOSSES. How does our winning trade compare to the average winning trade.

So in our example System 1 made $100 on every winning trade. ZERO outliers. System 2 made $1000 on every trade. ZERO outliers. Since the average win = $1000. But if we use Average TRADE of $100, then every win of $1000 is an outlier.

I hope my explanation isn't too confusing and in fact obvious. It is extraordinary that such a grave error has not been detected back in V1 or V2 of MC or whenever this functionality was added.

Please VOTE to have this corrected. Anyone who does backtesting MUST vote on this issue to be corrected.

You can find Outlier data under the Menu View/Strategy Performance Report/Trade Analysis/Outliers.
Note that it refers to 'Avg Trade'. This needs to be split into Avg WIN and Avg LOSS, along with separate Standard Deviation calculations based on each of those 2 numbers.

Emojis are a concise and fun way to express things in text.


Please add support for creating color emojis in text plots.

Windows has full emoji support: https://emojipedia.org/microsoft/
You can press **Win + period** buttons to insert an emoji in any text box.

When I try to draw text with emoji in a MultiCharts indicator, I only get "??" on the plot.

protected override void CalcBar()
{
if (Bars.TimeValue.Minute % 10 == 0)
{
var point = new ChartPoint(Bars.CurrentBar, Bars.CloseValue);
var textObj = DrwText.Create(point, "[put emoji here]");
textObj.VStyle = ETextStyleV.Above;
textObj.FontName = "Segoe UI Emoji";
}
}

I tried "Segoe UI Emoji" and "Segoe Color Emoji" fonts.

Also it would be great if MultiCharts can support color emojis in PowerLanguage Editor Output.

Output.WriteLine("[put emoji here]"); // shows in black and white

Please add the feature that can link Order and Position Tracker window to charts, such that when click an instrument in Order and Position Tracker window, the linked charts will refresh accordingly. This way people can quickly go through the charts of all the open positions.

I would be surprised if this has not been requested previously, but I'll do it again. Please provide documentation of the pre-built signals in MultiCharts. Thank you.

The current alerts only allow for a different description and different sound to distinguish them from others.
It would be great to be able to change:
1) Font style
2) Font color
3) Background color
4) Placement location on screen
5) A blinking option would be great

In Commission Rules, allow setting commission min/max by percentage.

Related post: [this](https://www.multicharts.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=51498&p=131344#p131344)
Related issue: [MC-105](https://www.multicharts.com/pm/public/multicharts/issues/MC-105)

I need a way to export all of my script source code to a single text file where I can search for references and also do some cross-referencing.

I created a strategy in PT and cloned it 11 times, for a total of 12 strategies. I then input different instruments and signal settings in each of the strategies. Later, I found I could shift the strategies up or down, and decided to do so. It seemed to have some unintended consequences. Instruments disappeared. Some instruments suddenly appeared in 2 strategies. Is this the intended behavior? Seems like a bug or two crawling around here.

In the Walk Forward Optimization feature, there is a button labelled "Apply" that appears after the optimization has run. Quite handy when it's the last item you are going to optimize (I don't include optimized results while optimizing, so only use it for last variable). But it seems to have a bug. When you click "Apply", it will apply the result to the signal. But it also changes a result in another signal in the chart, usually to a value that was there previously. This is very repeatable. Applying a result in a signal is a nice touch, but changing values in other signals is not......

Given that MB Trading is not accepting new customers, please add Ally invest data source to MC. Ally invest bought MB Trading.

Please add the feature that can download the trades filled when MC is offline. This is a common feature supported by Ninjartrader, Sierra Charts etc.

Exit Strategy prices reflect the prices of the symbol from the last used Exit Strategy.
Ex: Exit Strategy for ES shows 2654 when I am going to enter an exit strategy for NQ.
This is crazy.
The prices are not even close....of course.

I start to see more and more the benefits of the .NET version ... through its powerful classes.
Would be great to see a catch up in terms of API capabilities. Some examples are .BarsOfData(N) and PortfolioStrategies[0].Signals[0].StrategyInfo which are accessible from a MM signal.
No idea how can these be nicely accessed from PowerLanguage (other than using local vars exported with pmm(s) functions, or global variables - which tend to have a lot of Gotcha's and idiosyncrasies you'd like not to waist time with).

Thanks

The idea is to have a number N of strategies running in parallel, and while live execution, have the programmatic option (within the MM signal) to enable / disable sending order to broker for selected set of strategies. So, a MM signal could iterate through all strategies and decide one or two of them will not push orders to Broker.

Nonetheless, they'll all run live and present live results. But only some of them would send orders to broker. The other would be the Tradestation Equivalent of "Generate strategy orders for display in TradeManager" but with "Automate execution" disabled.

Why "Forward Testing" won't cut it? Because Forward Testing doesn't send anything to broker.

It often happens that due to a glitch in PT-broker(IB) connection, there are gaps in historical data.
However, Reload functionality currently only works in MC - which makes it a hassle reloading data for a big number of symbols.

Please implement Reload functionality in Portfolio Trader.