Support Board
Support Board
Search Board
Control Panel
View My Posts / Threads
Direct MessagesDate/Time: Fri, 03 May 2024 18:53:56 +0000
Post From: Trading Options with CQG Data - Symbol settings not found for current service
| [2019-11-28 04:18:59] |
| |
|
We are just getting back to this now. This is what you wrote: 1. young retail platform gains new interest 2. amazing features implemented, bugs eradicated, to satisfy rush of new users 3. developers become overwhelmed with support, desire more revenue for less ongoing effort 4. developers remove features and connectivity to industry standards, eg cqg 5. developers attempt to artificially quantitative ease users to more profitable features 6. users go find new young platform, goto 1; 3. Completely false. We are here to reduce problems, for everyone and reduce costs for everyone. 4. We have not removed functionality. We did remove CQG FIX, but one of the highest motivations of that and CQG agrees is because they have different entitlements with associated fees for that option and it only creates ongoing burden to us with FCM's having to deal with this. And it also is more difficult to support two different interfaces to CQG. We also found a problem with the CQG FIX interface related to background re-connections which we had implemented due to all of the disconnection issues with CQG. 5. Completely false. Completely false. And we do not even really have to prove this because it is just apparent with how low we keep our prices. 6. Whatever works for you. It does not matter to us. It has long been our plan, to provide a unified directly provided data feed, for the most popular exchanges, to users in order to provide a quality of service to users to minimize issues for them and for ourselves and to not have all of the associated problems with external services that we have no control over. And once we have most users on that data feed, then we can provide it more economically to everyone. We are working towards that. And when we have started to provide the Barchart data feed many years ago, that really had its own associated issues related to connectivity limitations, and also background authorizations. With the Denali feed, we have cut out all of the associated issues with dealing with Barchart. Do you know how much CQG really costs? The true cost is $10 a month for a Sierra Chart specific connection fee charged by CQG. $15 a month for historical data. And they only provide current contracts. We are subsidizing CQG, with our own data feed with historical data. $20 a month for their web-based trading panel ( our version of this will be coming out in about a week and will be free). And then $0.10 per contract. And they limit you to 10 levels of market depth for the CME group of exchanges. You cannot even do continuous futures contracts with CQG. We make that possible. But purely on CQG market data this is not supported. Now we know there is one broker, who can avoid some of these fees for you. But this is still the true cost of CQG. And what we are offering, is overall less expensive and you get more functionality at the same time!. And will continue to get lower. Your conclusions really are very far off of the reality of the philosophy of this business. When people keep telling us about issues involving CQG market depth data, we have very strong motivation, to bring that to an end. It makes us look bad, it frustrates the users and creates a support burden. It simply does not make sense for us to be continuing to promote or providing technical support for the CQG data feed. And we have had enough of it. Enough of it. Now maybe you could say there is something we could do to fix that and yes we probably could spend a lot of time looking at the behavior the feed understanding exactly why certain things happen and then implementing a solution. But this is just a stupid waste of time because they are doing things improperly.We are exhausted over this kind of stuff and your conclusions, completely off base completely off base of reality. We know one of the market depth issues, is really not solvable. It was never even our plan to even be supporting the CQG data feed. And we regret it. As a matter fact after reading what you wrote, we probably should just drop support for CQG. You are only giving us motivation to totally pull support for CQG altogether. And yes we are willing to lose the business over it because we've had enough of this. It is not worth it. We are not far off from offering our own direct CME order routing. ---- Update will we really remove support for CQG? No. But we will put together some sort of package which CQG users will need to use at some point in the future, we do not know when, which will provide a Denali data feed. And really CQG really does not make sense for us. They are a competitor. They require special entitlements for users to use Sierra Chart with CQG. Dealing with login and connectivity issues creates an unnecessary burden upon us. And there are just issues with the behavior of their data feed. We really should never have supported the CQG data feed. 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 Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-11-28 06:10:36
|