Support Board
Support Board
Search Board
Control Panel
View My Posts / Threads
Direct MessagesDate/Time: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 10:05:08 +0000
Problem with Overlay Studies' Scales
View Count: 1623
| [2019-06-02 00:19:48] |
| User1990 - Posts: 47 |
|
Hello, I have a few questions regarding the following chart (link below) that I am wondering if you can please help me take a look at. http://www.sierrachart.com/image.php?Image=1559433411548.png First, in Region 2, I overlaid two Williams studies with one True Strength Index study. I set the two Williams studies to be a scale of -100 to 0 and the TSI study to be a scale of -1 to 1. The lines seem to be correct. However, I cannot confirm that the two Williams studies are indeed between -100 to 0 as only the scale for the TSI study seems to show up (on the left hand side). The right hand side is empty in terms of scale values. I am wondering if there is a way to confirm that the two Williams studies are indeed on a separate scale than the TSI study? The same problem happens in Region 3 where only the scale of MACD seems to show up (somehow on both sides) even though I set the scale for the two Stochastic studies to be between 0 to 100. I just wanted to confirm that these two Stochastic studies are indeed independent to MACD in scale. Secondly, I am wondering if there is a way to change the display value format for the studies in Regions 2,3 and 4? I tried changing the value format in their respective settings menus but it didn't seem to help. All the studies' value format seems to take after the value format of the symbol itself (with the exception of Region 2), which in this case (GBPUSD) happens to have a lot of decimal places. Lastly, is there a way to decrease the space between the scale and the border? I am hoping solving the value format problem for the overlay studies, especially Volume study could resolve this but I am not entirely sure so I just thought I'd throw this question in as well. Sorry for the question overload. Thanks so much for your help. Best Regards, Elaine |
| [2019-06-02 04:45:16] |
| |
|
Secondly, I am wondering if there is a way to change the display value format for the studies in Regions 2,3 and 4? I tried changing the value format in their respective settings menus but it didn't seem to help. This is exactly how you do it. You should have no trouble with this at all. None. It would be impossible for the Value Format to be different than you are setting.Lastly, is there a way to decrease the space between the scale and the border? I am hoping solving the value format problem for the overlay studies, especially Volume study could resolve this but I am not entirely sure so I just thought I'd throw this question in as well. 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: 2019-06-03 01:51:25
|
| [2019-06-03 01:50:25] |
| |
|
In regards to the first question we cannot comprehend this clearly unless we get the actual chart and then we can also look at the other described problem as well. Provide that chart by following these instructions here: Support Board Posting Information: Providing Chartbook with Only a Single Chart 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: 2019-06-03 01:51:07
|
| [2019-06-03 02:11:48] |
| User1990 - Posts: 47 |
|
Thank you very much for your response. I have posted the chart referenced above with the attachment below. I have played around with the value format more and I think I've pretty much resolved this (Problem 2). The Time Range Highlight and MA on Volume studies overlay I use somehow were messing with the value format displayed by the rest of the studies. However, I also think the Time Range Highlight studies are playing a factor in the spacing between scale and border (Problem 3) which I can't seem to resolve. Really appreciate your help. Best Regards, Elaine |
Private File |
| [2019-06-03 22:50:39] |
| John - SC Support - Posts: 31027 |
|
You are correct in that the Time Range Highlight is causing the troubles with what you are seeing. The first thing to do is to move all the Time Range Highlight studies to the bottom of the list in the Studies to Graph area of the Chart Studies window. Since this study does not have any dependencies on other studies, moving to the bottom is not a problem. After that, select OK or Apply and everything should correct itself. Refer to the Move Up/Move Down section of this documentation for how to change the order of studies: Chart Studies: Chart Studies Window Also, here is documentation that explains which study is used to determine the left-side scale: Chart Settings: Use Left Side Scale (Chart >> Chart Settings >> Scale menu) For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, use the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing |
| [2019-06-04 02:21:02] |
| User1990 - Posts: 47 |
|
Thank you for your response. I've successfully resolved the spacing problem by moving down the Time Range Highlight studies like you instructed! Thanks a lot! However, I still have a few problems with this scale issue, or rather I wanted to confirm a few things about it: First, as in my case, in Region 2, I have a Total Strength Index study with its scale set to be User Defined. I also have TWO Williams studies both set to be User Defined (both between -100 to 0). Does it mean if the ordering of the TSI study is above the two Williams studies then the TSI study will automatically appear on the right and the two Williams studies to appear on the left-side scale? This seems to be the case but I just wanted to confirm. Secondly, How would I know the two Williams studies are aligned in scale for sure? For example, I have attached a chart where I use THREE RSI studies in lieu of the TWO Williams studies. I arranged the TSI study to be above the 3 RSI studies so that the 3 RSI studies all use left-side scale. All 3 RSI scales are set to be between 0 to 100. However, you can clearly tell their 0 and 100 lines are slightly off. I played around with the order of the 3 RSI studies and if I were to put RSI 3 below RSI 9 or RSI 15 then their 0 and 100 lines would become aligned. Somehow, with their current order of RSI 3-9-15 their scales aren't completely aligned even though their values are right. I think calculation shouldn't matter in this case because RSI values will never be above 100 and their averages won't be above 100 either no matter the input values. I am wondering if you might have an insight into this. Thirdly, as in this newly attached file in Region 2, there are three types of studies (TSI, RSI and Williams) each with their own User-Defined scale, how will scaling work in this case? Does that mean the lowest-rung study will become automatic (the User-Defined function won't work)? Last thing, it looks like de-selecting Chart Settings -> Advanced Settings -> Use Left Side Scale doesn't seem to matter much to the determination of left-side and right-side scales once the correct ordering of studies are performed. Am i correct in this? (would prefer not to show left-side scale in Real Time). Thank you so much for your help. Sorry for all the questions coming your way. Best Regards, Elaine |
Private File |
| [2019-06-04 15:11:30] |
| John - SC Support - Posts: 31027 |
|
1. Yes, you have this mostly correct. The only thing, technically, is that the 2 Williams studies are not setting the Left-Hand Scale, the one that is higher in the order for the region is the one that sets the scale. But since they are using the same scaling, the Left-Hand Scale will apply to both. 2. The best way to test if the scales are correct is to open the Tools Value Window and use the Crosshair to point to a particular bar, and verify that for each line at that bar that the value in the scale matches the value in the Tools Value Window. As long as the scales are set to exactly the same values, then they should all match up. 3. The "lowest rung" study will be whatever scale is defined for it, but may not display the way you want. The best thing to do is to either make that last study have a scale of Independent, or, if possible, use the same scaling as one of the other two studies. 4. Yes, you are correct. The right side scale is going to try and find the first study set to Automatic, and then will use whichever it finds first after that. Again, the order of the search is in the order of the studies in the list with the ones at the top coming first. As stated in #3, if you are not going to use the Left-Side scale, then you will need to determine the best way to display the other studies. If possible, use Automatic scaling, but if this does not work due to the range of the values, then you will need to consider setting the scale to Independent. Refer to the following information for setting the scale for all studies in a region: Chart Scale and Scale Adjusting: Maintaining Same Scale for Multiple Graphs in Chart Region For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, use the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing |
| [2019-06-06 08:41:35] |
| User1990 - Posts: 47 |
|
Thank you very much for your reply.So for your point #2, it is exactly the problem that I have is that the three RSIs are not aligned even though their values seem to be correct; by which I mean when RSI 3 = 0 and when RSI 9 = 0, they are at different zero lines. This makes me wonder, after attempting to digest all your points, if Sierra doesn't recognize the type of studies but rather only the order of studies. For example, as to your point #1, my second Williams study technically isn't recognized as the same as the first Williams study that is an order above it, rather, it is more or less seen as Independent even though I've set a User-Defined range? which makes me wonder if this might be the reason causing the misalignment problem highlighted in point #2. I am just trying to understand exactly how accurate the chart is with the same kind of studies layered over each other, especially at the points where they meet. Thanks a lot for all your help. I really appreciate it. Best Regards, Elaine |
| [2019-06-06 14:02:54] |
| John - SC Support - Posts: 31027 |
|
Can you please attach your chartbook with these studies on it. We are not able to reproduce what you are seeing.
For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, use the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing |
| [2019-06-09 01:59:17] |
| User1990 - Posts: 47 |
|
Sorry for the delay. I did attach the file a couple posts above, I am not sure if it is because I didn't attach it correctly. Here it is again; please let me know if you can't open it. Specifically, in Region 2, the 0 and 100 lines for RSI 9 and RSI 15 are pretty much aligned. However the 0 and 100 lines for RSI 3 are not (the dotted lines). Using the cross-hair tool, you can clearly see cases where RSI 3 (deep blue) and 9 (red) both equal 100 in value but they don't actually meet. So i am thinking maybe my RSI 9, 15 and Williams studies (bright blue) are actually all on Independent scale? if you can provide me with some insights that would be really helpful. Thanks a lot for your help. Best Regards, Elaine |
Private File |
| [2019-06-14 07:05:04] |
| User1990 - Posts: 47 |
|
Hi, I am wondering if anyone has had a chance to help me take a look at the problem outlined in the previous posts? Thank you very much for your help. Best Regards, Elaine |
To post a message in this thread, you need to log in with your Sierra Chart account: