Login Page - Create Account

Support Board


Date/Time: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 17:40:22 +0000



Notice: Transact Websocket Connectivity Issue

[2019-08-15 14:54:28]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
If you are using Sierra Chart with Transact versions 1942 or later which uses the websocket connection and Sierra Chart is not able to maintain the connection to Transact, then just simply restart Sierra Chart. We are forcing an update to version 1975.

What will happen after the restart is the installer will be downloaded and then you will get a prompt to run the installer. Just go through the installation process to install 1975. And then run Sierra Chart again.

We have implemented a patch for the issue.

The issue is not entirely clear but it relates to extension bits on the websocket protocol.

You can also update to the current version with Help >> Download Current Version.

If you have any further questions just post here.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-08-15 14:57:52
[2019-08-15 16:56:31]
User212764 - Posts: 204
Any idea when the legacy TA bridge connection will be available for charting AND trading, as promised recently?

We are going to work on restoring the old Transact bridge program this evening. So that will be out before morning.

Just tried to live TRADE thru v1975. No bueno. And no legacy TA connection either. Just the Transact WS (websocket) instead.

Order Error - Trading connection is disconnected. Internal Order ID: 8. Service Order ID: (none). Symbol: MNQU9. Account: 90125 | 2019-08-15 12:42:19.009

Please advise when you can.
[2019-08-15 19:47:05]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
Restoring the old Transact bridge program is more involved than we thought. We expect to have it done by tomorrow.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
[2019-08-17 23:36:26]
User388767 - Posts: 10
Just updated to the latest version - I believe 1975 - but still unable to connect to the data feed for this week's trading review. Had the same issue last weekend while trying to review the week's trading (repeated attempts to connect and the WebSocket thing). I believed you got me going again rather quickly -- much appreciated. Anything you can do to help me along again today would be much appreciated or perhaps you're working on the system.
[2019-08-18 00:14:53]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
In regards to post #4 you are using CQG. The CQG server is down. This has nothing to do with Sierra Chart.

But this should not cause you any problem. Just select File >> Disconnect to prevent Sierra Chart from connecting.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-08-18 04:04:43
[2019-08-18 11:02:16]
User657944 - Posts: 173
Just FYI I tried to upgrade to 1975 as a Transact user and in SIM live mode the websocket is working and also I was surprised to find the DOM available now (they told no chance before september) so on monday I will try to see what will happen on live mode.
[2019-08-18 11:35:14]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
The Trading websocket API from Transact is not available now. That we know for sure.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-08-18 11:35:21
[2019-08-18 12:34:42]
User657944 - Posts: 173
I beleive You was just to notify the community that there's something new that is working on since on other posts I yet saw people with connection issue with latest versions.
[2019-08-18 17:57:03]
User212764 - Posts: 204
Hopefully SC will have it ready for trading this week. Latest prerelease I tried on my dev box (v1976) didn't have the legacy TA connection at all.
[2019-08-20 08:20:50]
User212764 - Posts: 204
Uploaded v1977. Still no legacy TA bridge connection. Any update on when this may be available for use?
[2019-08-20 08:25:39]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
We have decided for the time being not to bring the bridge back. We put a lot of work into this websocket connection implemented it well and properly and we continue to maintain that. This is the new interface that Transact is providing and they are responsible for taking care of any problems with it.

We will also continue to enhance it, including eventually processing it on a background thread.

As we started to go through bringing back the bridge back, there are a lot of little pieces and implementation details to it. It was not simple to do. Just stay on version 1941 for now. Here are the rollback procedures:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?page=doc/SoftwareDownload.php#Rollback

One thing we have realized is that we have been far too accommodating on issues like this over the years. We have to hold the line here. And we are going to hold the line here.

Our decision on this is final. If users want to leave over this matter, then that is going to be the end result. We are holding the line on this.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-08-20 08:33:51
[2019-08-20 08:55:50]
User212764 - Posts: 204
Thank you for the update.

I'd like to use a DTC implementation with 1941 (TA bridge) as the source, and newer versions (1975+) as the destination, in a new instance.

Based on what I read on the updated documentation page, I should think this would be the only feasible implementation, going forward.

https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?page=doc/NewInstance.php#UsingDTCServerForDataAndTradingInAnotherSCInstance

Any pointers or comments would be appreciated.
[2019-08-20 15:27:30]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
We will get back to you on this. But as we were troubleshooting a problem where users were getting disconnected we think the problem is that there are fragmented frames being provided. We have not encountered these before an websocket connection so we need to add support for that.

We will have fragmented frame support ready today.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-08-20 15:27:44
[2019-08-20 16:24:28]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
We have released version 1978 with a temporary solution to disconnections when using the Transact websocket data feed.

We will have a full and proper solution out later today.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
[2019-08-21 01:15:06]
User347037 - Posts: 86
Well....I have been on version 1967 for several weeks and until yesterday it was functioning. Today I am able to connect to Transact but when placing orders on Sierra Chart they are not showing up on the Infinity DOM and after 5-7 seconds disappear from the chart with the following error message in the log:

Requesting order status for non-responsive order. | Symbol: ESU9 | TradeAccount: [Sim]******* | InternalOrderID: 48424 | Current Status: Order Sent | 2019-08-20 21:04:56.721 *

Trade Order Error - Order timed-out waiting for response from service/exchange server. Internal Order ID: 48424. Service Order ID: (none). Symbol: ESU9. Account: [Sim]******8 | 2019-08-20 21:05:26.711 *


I have tried to upgrade to the latest version 1978 but no effect - same problem. Orders are placed on the chart not showing in the DOM and not going through. After few seconds they disappear.

This is a MAJOR outage, impacting trading. Please advise
[2019-08-21 06:43:00]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
This has been answered here:
https://www.sierrachart.com/SupportBoard.php?ThreadID=44864#P189343

Really the orders should be rejected outright and we are not sure why that is not the case.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
[2019-08-21 10:27:54]
User212764 - Posts: 204
Any update on the question posed in post #12?

I'd like to use a DTC implementation with 1941 (TA bridge) as the source, and newer versions (1975+) as the destination, in a new instance.

Based on what I read on the updated documentation page, I should think this would be the only feasible implementation, going forward.

https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?page=doc/NewInstance.php#UsingDTCServerForDataAndTradingInAnotherSCInstance

Any pointers or comments would be appreciated.

[2019-08-21 18:12:18]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
You can use a configuration that does not support trading but allows you to share market data between instances and this is documented here:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?page=doc/MultipleServices.html#AccessingMarketDataFromOtherInstancesOfSierra%20Chart

This only allows the sharing of market data between Sierra Chart instances. But it will work properly for market data.

You need to have two separate installations of Sierra Chart and login independently to them. Not using File >> New Instance. For this to work properly you will need a direct account:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?page=doc/DirectAccount.html

If you want to have trading support, you would need to use the method here (same as what you linked to above):
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?page=doc/NewInstance.php#UsingDTCServerForDataAndTradingInAnotherSCInstance

However, this is going to require a direct account so you can login independently to each installation not using File >> New Instance. And then each installation can be a different version. 1941 for one and then the newer version for the client instance.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-08-21 18:18:15
[2019-08-21 18:14:26]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
We are revising the above post. Just give us a couple of minutes. What we previously said was not technically correct.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-08-21 18:16:38
[2019-08-21 18:19:05]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
Post 18 has been updated and is now technically correct and will give you what you need.

Let us know if you need any help with a direct account.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
[2019-08-22 11:22:44]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
Prerelease version 1979 has been released and supports fragmented websocket messages which should solve some disconnection issues we have seen.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
[2019-08-23 01:03:30]
abrown8703 - Posts: 44
Version 1979 disconnects frequently. Going back to version 1941, which seems to be the last stable TransAct version that is stable for now.
[2019-08-23 03:05:24]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
Actually the reason for the disconnections is because the orders connection is disconnecting. We have notice that ourselves. That is not what we were solving by adding support for websocket frame fragmentation.

We will have to just add an option to disable the use of the Transact orders connection altogether.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
[2019-08-23 03:21:45]
User347037 - Posts: 86
What I can't understand is how is this possible for Sierra to release a MAJOR new functionality (Web Socket Interface) without adequately testing it with a counterparty (Transact) and have so many traders badly impacted, practically causing them to either seize trading entirely because they no longer able to place orders to Transact from the charts or to be severely limited in their trading (rolling back to Version 1941) because many custom studies compiled on newer versions of Sierra no longer working?

This is by far the biggest failed rollout of new functionality I have seen and quite frankly I would expect more professional approach from Sierra on this subject.

Why not simply integrate the old Transact Bridge connectivity option into latest Sierra version until this situation is resolved?
[2019-08-23 04:31:08]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
What I can't understand is how is this possible for Sierra to release a MAJOR new functionality (Web Socket Interface) without adequately testing it with a counterparty (Transact) and have so many traders badly impacted,
It was well tested. There are two basic issues. The two basic issues we have seen, is authorization problems on the Transact side. That is not something we have any control over or would have been aware of ahead of time and is easily resolved by Transact.

And we also did not know the users were not able to use the Trading connection. It is certainly usable in the test environment, and we expected that Transact would make this available shortly. We did not realize it would be going on for weeks.

And this most recent issue with the disconnection of the orders connection, is something that really we have just noticed in the last couple of days ourselves. We will have a solution implemented before morning. At best this is a minor non-impacting issue. And it is also something that that Transact could resolve on their side as well. They need to make the connection stable or just not allow the connection.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-08-23 05:45:51
[2019-08-23 05:21:40]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
What I can't understand is how is this possible for Sierra to release a MAJOR new functionality (Web Socket Interface) without adequately testing it with a counterparty (Transact)


Also in regards to this, there was extensive work done by us on the Transact trading websocket connection. This was done to a high standard and with high attention to detail. There were various issues/questions that were reported to Transact and they were resolved/answered, and this was extensively tested using our detailed test procedure and all tests passed. It was not until about more than two months later after the initial development was it then ready for release. It was not released, until such time that it was properly certified.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
[2019-08-23 11:48:13]
User347037 - Posts: 86
Support,

I appreciate you answering this and explaining in such detail but the bottom line is - ALL of Transact users are not able to use Sierra platform to trade from the charts unless they roll back to V1941.

It is certainly usable in the test environment, and we expected that Transact would make this available shortly.

That is NOT correct: Neither TEST (live Sym) nor Live (Trading) environment of Transact are working. Orders are being rejected outright and not displayed on Sierra if entered from Infinity DOM. Also, Transact provides NO time line for resolving this issue and claims major issues with Web Socket interface introduced by SC.

Again, I don't think user (trader) community cares who's fault is this (Transact or Sierra) but it is clearly a concern that traders cannot use the platform and tools they have invested so much time and money into.

Why not enable an original Transact Bridge connection in the current version of Sierra as an interim solution until Sierra and Transact figure out their connectivity issues?

User support should be a priority for BOTH companies but it seems like none of the parties are making any effort to resolve this.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-08-23 12:56:27
[2019-08-23 13:00:21]
User316362 - Posts: 121
Could you just keep this as a sticky post until Resolved by both sides?
[2019-08-23 14:20:16]
User347037 - Posts: 86
Support,

So is there any reliable solution for the constant disconnect problem to Transact server on V1978 besides downgrading to V1941? Not only that trading from the charts is disabled but now even the stable connectivity is not working!

Please advise.
[2019-08-23 14:32:01]
40winks - Posts: 185
Transact users,

It's not SC Support's fault.. All Transact's fault!!

They got SC to do the websocket connection, but hid behind SC when the websocket failed on their live servers.

Shame on Transact's Engineers and support staff.


Response to User347037's post (#69) below:

I understand where you're coming from.. But since Transact is the culprit, SC Support cannot do anything that is really beyond their control.

As for proof, just read all the related threads in this Support Board, and the fact that Transact is moving away from SC to their web-based "new AT Charts".
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-08-23 15:14:20
[2019-08-23 14:53:59]
User347037 - Posts: 86
It's not SC Support's fault.. All Transact's fault!!

They got SC to do the websocket connection, but hid behind SC when the websocket failed on their live servers.

Shame on Transact's Engineers and support staff.

40winks,

That is a quite assertive and adamant statement on your part. Do you have any proof to support this? There are many sources (including Transact) stating the opposite.

I would like to underscore once again that traders DO NOT care which side has dropped the ball, they only concerned about their ability to facilitate the trading and have a reliable product.
[2019-08-23 16:01:25]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
In regards to market data feed issues with Transact, we have discussed this now with Transact. They are setting up a test server to better analyze this, and we will use their JSON encoding method rather than binary. They say that would be more bandwidth efficient.

But the binary method is what the old bridge program uses anyway. It certainly is faster on the decoding/client side.

And also, we see no evidence this issue is on the Sierra Chart side. There is some framing problem which clearly looks like on their side. For example we see errors indicating extension bits set, and invalid opcodes. We never see these with any other service which uses a websocket connection. This would indicate a problem with the actual data coming from the remote side. And we have analyzed the Sierra Chart websocket functionality, and that is according to specifications.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-08-23 21:54:49
[2019-08-23 21:53:52]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
We are looking at the possibility that the determination of the frame length is incorrect when there are larger frames.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-08-23 21:54:11
[2019-08-23 22:57:39]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
We just sent this to Transact now:
As I looked at how we determine the frame size, it is all technically correct and I went through actual step-by-step manual calculations to verify the code. It is according to specification and is logical.

So I don't see anything wrong with the decoding of the websocket frames on our side.

Reference:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6455#section-5

The purpose of this is not to place blame anywhere. We are just going through all possibilities to determine where the problem is. So far we are still not finding any issue on our side. But we are going to go through a test with them next week where they are going to look at the lower level packets.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-08-23 23:28:42
[2019-08-24 00:57:53]
User347037 - Posts: 86
Thank you Support, your dedication to resolve this problem is greatly appreciated. Please keep at this as we need a solution.
[2019-08-24 06:00:04]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
We also want to say that this is very easily resolved by Transact and we told them this as well. They just need to reduce the size of the websocket frames. Clearly there is some corruption occurring when they are too large. What the maximum size should be, we do not know but we suggested 4K. That will at least immediately mitigate the problem. At least we think so. This is just based on a reasonable assumption.

We see no evidence at all that the frames are mishandled on the Sierra Chart side and our websocket processor has been in extensive use for years now with 0% problems like this with CQG and other services. If there is some problem on our side, it must have something to do with the large frame side but as we said, we went over this again today and saw no issue even when the frame size approaches 4 GB.

All of the network I/O, and decryption, and websocket frame handling, is all common code which is extensively used every day by other services by thousands of users with no trouble.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-08-25 05:41:37
[2019-08-27 00:29:36]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
We continue to not see any problem on the Sierra Chart side in regards to the framing errors with the websocket connection to Transact, which results in a lost connection.

This is a 100% the same connection that is used with CQG, BitMex, our web-based trade simulator, Bitfinex, and there has been never any known instance of framing errors with thousands of connections every day for years now.

And over the weekend we continue to look at this very closely and see no evidence of a problem at all on the Sierra Chart side.

We gave Transact additional information over the weekend and we are waiting to work with them to analyze this problem further. We are not sure if they made any progress on it today or not. We are just waiting to go through a test procedure with them. They had us connect to a test server, and we have been using that connection Sunday evening but there is a problem with the packets on that server but nevertheless maybe they did gather some information from our connection to figure out the issue.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-08-27 00:30:22
[2019-08-27 01:54:48]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
What we think we are going to do, is switch to their JSON encoding method. This is what they recommend to solve the lag problem and we have looked at the protocol and we understand that it does use a lot less bandwidth. The only thing is that it does not have any market depth data.


This may also solve the websocket framing problem as well. We will try to get it out this week.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
[2019-08-27 02:04:45]
User347037 - Posts: 86
Will this be a temporary solution just to enable the trading from the chart and stability of the connection or a permanent fix for Transact issue? How will this affect Number Bars study and other functionality that required Market Depth data?
[2019-08-27 02:40:26]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
This has no effect on the trading support. Only market data. And ultimately we cannot say what the stability will be using their JSON market data encoding. But we can see it does use less bandwidth.

This has no detrimental effect on the Numbers Bars study because that does not require market depth data.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-08-27 08:08:04
[2019-08-27 09:37:29]
Carl71 - Posts: 125
1)Their JSON market data encoding what kind of protocol uses? TCP or UDP?
UDP is faster than TCP, and the simple reason is because its nonexistent acknowledge packet (ACK) that permits a continuous packet stream, instead of TCP that acknowledges a set of packets, calculated by using the TCP window size and round-trip time (RTT).

2)Are you saying that the only way to trade with their market depth is through their DOM? Sierra DOM will be unusable?
[2019-08-27 10:11:42]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
1. The connection is always TCP. UDP is completely unacceptable for charting. No one would ever use that for charting purposes.

2. Yes at the present time they do not provide that with the JSON encoding.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
[2019-08-27 11:45:26]
User347037 - Posts: 86
If this implementation of JSON protocol will effectively render Sierra DOM unusable, then it will entirely negate the purpose of using Package 5 Sierra Chart we paying for. Orders from SC DOM will not be possible to place and there will be no information on executed volume, Bids / Asks and Pulling Stacking available which is a major component of traders decision making process.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-08-28 03:44:22
[2019-08-27 12:22:49]
User316362 - Posts: 121
Let's be clear. So chart trading will no longer be supported by TransAct?
[2019-08-27 17:06:16]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
So chart trading will no longer be supported by TransAct?
Yes it will be. We expect it will be out this coming month in September.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
[2019-08-29 09:49:16]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
We will be releasing in about an hour version 1982, which supports the new Transact compact JSON encoding for market data. The limitations are as follows:

No market depth data
No top of book bid or ask sizes.
No daily high and low values (they will be present but not accurate)

But we think this has a good chance of solving the lagging issues, and the disconnections. But we would need feedback to know that for sure.

It is clear, we probably have to bring back the bridge program, but we want to see what the feedback is with version 1982.
----

On another subject:

You can either pay for Sierra Chart through your brokerage account with Infinity/Transact. There should be no price change for the month of September.

Or alternatively you can pay for Sierra Chart directly to Sierra Chart. If you run Sierra Chart using the shortcut on your desktop, you can then pay for usage time and take advantage of the 30% discount even if you pay month-to-month (we make no long-term guarantee as to how long this will be available). After logging into Sierra Chart, select Help >> Account Control Panel from the menu.

And then follow the instructions here to pay for usage time:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?page=doc/PurchaseInformation.php#RenewingAccess

And once you are paying direct for Sierra Chart, you will just always launch Sierra Chart through the shortcut on your desktop. You would not launch it direct from the Transact software. You will continue to use the username that begins with Transact_user_.

The above discount only applies to existing Transact users.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-08-29 16:38:27
[2019-08-29 19:45:43]
User347037 - Posts: 86
Support, we are happy to assist with testing and will give it a try by downloading version 1982, but it's clear that Market Depth and Order Book limitations are quite severe. Ultimate solution would be bringing back the Bridge connectivity at least for the time being until this issue is worked out. What you offering will address very important issue - lagging and disconnection but I am sure traders community would appreciate the full functionality as well.
[2019-08-29 20:57:33]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
but I am sure traders community would appreciate the full functionality as well.
This is something that Transact will need to add to their compact JSON encoding.

And also in regards to this, it is something also that Transact will need to resolve if this persists with the compact JSON encoding:
lagging and disconnection

And also if the disconnect issue is resolved when using 1982 and the market is very active, then it quite likely indicates the problem was on the Transact side because the underlying handling of the websocket frames, which relates to the disconnect, is the same whether we are processing the binary price packet or the JSON messages. There is no difference.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-08-29 23:05:49
[2019-08-29 23:05:45]
User212764 - Posts: 204
It is clear, we probably have to bring back the bridge program, but we want to see what the feedback is with version 1982.

Presuming software engineering best practices, you should have the raw code from version 1941 (Build 27570:27571M) still available.

Perhaps a software fork from version 1941 (keeping the legacy TA code intact) adding recent changes and updates might be considered here?
[2019-08-30 18:33:47]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
We have been told by Transact, that the main websocket production server of theirs does not yet properly support the JSON compact websocket encoding we have been using in 1982. So we switched back to the binary price packet processing in version 1983.

We did not realize this earlier because we were working on a different test server where the JSON compact encoding was working properly and in a certain way.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-08-30 20:39:25
[2019-08-30 20:19:38]
User347037 - Posts: 86
Support do you have any update on when the original Bridge connection with Transact may be coming back? Besides disabled chart trading latest version of Sierra also demonstrates a significant data lag. Real-time market data is delayed substantially, especially during highly active markets. This affects all chart types, from Number Bars and P&F to simple time interval.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-08-30 20:20:24
[2019-08-31 19:13:10]
EdCarp - Posts: 25
This affects all chart types, from Number Bars and P&F to simple time interval.

Of course it does.

Would a rollback to pre-1941 fix all these issues? I'm running 1928 and haven't seen any issues at all. Because of the refusal of TransAct to support more DOM levels and symbols plus this new issue with websockets, I'm seriously considering moving my account to another broker.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-08-31 19:27:04
[2019-08-31 21:48:06]
User347037 - Posts: 86
You are not alone. Many Transact customers feel the same. The worst part of this situation is that Transact completely refusing responsibility for this issue and pointing to Sierra. This is a silent push by Transact to force people switching to their new platform. They going to start losing business and customers in droves pretty soon.
[2019-09-01 03:23:15]
40winks - Posts: 185
The worst part of this situation is that Transact completely refusing responsibility for this issue and pointing to Sierra. This is a silent push by Transact to force people switching to their new platform.

User 347037, glad that you've realised I wasn't making an assertive statement earlier for nothing.


As a Transact user, I'm also seriously considering changing brokers.. Especially if Transact still has lagging and order routing issues with the latest SC version in September onwards, based on what they have informed SC Support (post #46):


Yes it will be. We expect it will be out this coming month in September.

[2019-09-03 02:59:16]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
You are not alone. Many Transact customers feel the same. The worst part of this situation is that Transact completely refusing responsibility for this issue and pointing to Sierra. This is a silent push by Transact to force people switching to their new platform. They going to start losing business and customers in droves pretty soon.

There are couple of basic issues here. One issue is lagging data and lagging data is almost always going to be an external cause. Refer to help topic 4:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?page=doc/helpdetails4.html

This is why we switched to the Transact compact JSON encoding but as of yet, they have not yet released that on their production server. We hope it will be this week.

The other problem is various websocket framing related errors. In the more than seven years or so that we have worked with websocket connections we have never seen any problem like this from a server.

If the issue is on the Sierra Chart side, it would be somewhere within the network I/O, encryption/decryption, Websocket framing layers or components. There is 0% chance it is at the network I/O or encryption/decryption layers. That is used extensively with all services including on our servers and that handles easily hundreds and hundreds of gigabytes a day flawlessly for years without any problem. There just is not a problem on our side there at all.

And with the websocket framing functionality, that is extensively used by CQG with 0% incidents like this ever over a period of at least five years. Although we are not sure we ever got frames larger than 65K from CQG and we do not know if that occurs with Transact either. However, we examined that code quite closely and see no problem. We also did a very thorough manual code review of the websocket functionality in Sierra Chart and see no problem.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
[2019-09-03 07:03:15]
EdCarp - Posts: 25
The other problem is various websocket framing related errors. In the more than seven years or so that we have worked with websocket connections we have never seen any problem like this from a server.

It's also quite possible that this is either a firmware issue inside the network card on TransAct's server, or a hardware issue with the network card itself. The only way to be sure, of course, would be to power down the server, remove power from the server for several seconds, then bring the server back up. If the problem persists, it is likely a hardware issue.
[2019-09-03 09:33:47]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
No it does not make sense it would be at that level. The data would never have made it through due to the TCP protocol. The only other possibility is that websocket extensions are being used unknown to them and we do not know what they are, and that is altering the websocket frames in some way. This is what it appeared initially like but it does not seem as though this is the case based upon further logs we have seen.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
[2019-09-04 16:47:07]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
If you are having problems, with losing the connection Transact and sometimes the reconnection not succeeding and the reconnection keeps getting lost over and over again, then use prerelease version 1985.

This uses the compact JSON format and Transact has released support for this.

Please let us know if this resolves the problem.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
[2019-09-05 00:15:33]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
The answer to the question about bringing back the bridge, is we decided against that again. The reason is in our call today with Transact, they said they are close to having the trading Websocket connection available to be used.

And every time we have started the process of bringing back the bridge interface, it just was not simple there were many detailed changes required to do that and it was quite an involved process to do properly and thoroughly. And the bridge really is a substandard method of connectivity. We are not happy with bringing that back. For example, Transact brought an issue today to us about bridge connectivity. They said they spent an hour on the phone with helping someone with that, and the situation is still unresolved, and we had an experience a few weeks ago with the bridge, where after the connection was lost, the bridge was not able to connect again every time it was started (Or something like that, we forget the exact details). But we have seen this so my times in logs posted here over the years.

Also, as we said before if the prerelease 1985 solves this:
If you are having problems, with losing the connection Transact and sometimes the reconnection not succeeding and the reconnection keeps getting lost over and over again
It would indicate the problem was with Transact. We will provide a technical explanation later. But we need to have feedback in regards to this.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-09-05 00:49:05
[2019-09-05 01:03:52]
User347037 - Posts: 86
Support,

Did Transact confirmed and assured that they in fact committed to resolving this problem with Web Socket, eventually releasing working as well as stable solution?

The reason I am razing this question is because it has been over 3 months and they seem to be no closer to the finish line than they were before. Transact keeps pushing back on facts every time someone inquires on the status of the issue and not even offering an approximate timeline.
[2019-09-05 01:16:12]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
They did not directly confirm that. But based on their own internal testing, the problem where they kept losing the connection on the websocket which was using the binary price packet is no longer occurring now that we are using the compact JSON encoding.

They do not believe the problem is on their side, but we did tell them today, it is exceptionally unlikely it is on the Sierra Chart side and we just left it at that. We said that we would have to go through a very low level buffer analysis to see what is happening, but if 1985 resolves this, then that will be unnecessary. This is why we want the feedback. We did not observe any problem today ourselves.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-09-05 01:16:48
[2019-09-06 18:58:10]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
Transact has confirmed this in regards to the compact JSON encoding used by version 1985:

It seems the sierra websocket is holding up. I think its good to release.

And we also told them this in regards to the binary price packet encoding which earlier versions have used:
your timing of the message is interesting. I was just looking into see why it is we were having a problem previously.

I have confirmed, that when using the binary price packets, you are sending out corrupted websocket data at times which is causing the lost connection. I cannot see any other possibility. I have looked at this quite closely. Nothing changes on our side, at the websocket level when you are using the JSON format, the websocket processing remains identical. (Note: and as we said above, there could not possibly be an issue at the network I/O or encryption/decryption level/layer)

The only variance is that there is less data flowing but the only possible reason that could be an issue is that if there is a frame over 65K, there is a different block of code to determine the frame size, but it essentially works identically. But that is not what is happening. There are no frames ever coming in over that size, when we are getting corrupt data.

And with the subsequent processing of the binary price packet, that is a safe read-only processing . So it is not as though there is any potential for data corruption using the binary price packets causing this issue. If there is any potential for data corruption, it would be more likely with JSON but clearly that is not happening because now we are processing enormous amounts more of that using the compact JSON format. (Note: We already knew there is no corruption occurring with the JSON data processing either. This code is reliable and has never been a problem for years with various usage of JSON internally and also with external services)

We will force an update, over the weekend.

Furthermore, the only thing that changes when requesting the binary price packets, or the compact JSON encoding of the market data with the Transact websocket price data connection, is the payload content of the websocket frames. The problem has always been with the header data on those frames causing the lost connections. Changing the payload should never cause any problem with the header processing . It simply could not.

This is further confirmation the problem is with corrupt data from the Transact server. And additionally as we have said above, there have been 0% issues like this, corrupt frame headers, with websocket connections to Bitfinex, BitMex, and with CQG with massive extensive use over a period of at least 6 years.

So if Transact did say the problem was on the Sierra Chart side, this was not correct based on our findings.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-09-07 20:12:01
[2019-09-06 20:50:14]
User212764 - Posts: 204
We will force an update, over the weekend.

Does this finally enable live trading thru the websocket with Transact?
[2019-09-07 02:10:24]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
No it does not.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
[2019-09-09 03:14:20]
User316362 - Posts: 121
Still can't connect using TransActWS version 1986. Going back to 1941 I guess.
[2019-09-09 04:31:47]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
If you cannot connect, then just make sure you have set the correct settings as explained here:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?page=doc/TransAct.php#SetupInstructions

And if you still cannot connect, then contact Transact support and they will allow the connection. You need to ask them to allow your Transact account to be able to use the new websocket connection.

If you continue to have problems connecting to Transact using the new websocket connection even after having asked them to allow the connection and there is an account logon error, then ask your broker about this.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-09-09 07:02:46
[2019-09-09 05:31:46]
EdCarp - Posts: 25
so they can make a decision to either abandon SC altogether and move to TT, Lynnsoft Investore R/t, Bluewater or other platforms

Apparently the poster is either unaware that Sierra is not tied to TransAct - they can use any broker/data feed - or the poster is a shill for another trading platform.
[2019-09-13 02:29:01]
40winks - Posts: 185
Don't be tricked by Transact or Infinity Futures into updating to v1986 and above. Their websocket connection is still useless.

User Crtfyd did that and encountered this problem, which SC Support confirmed:

The Transact websocket connection does not provide market depth data. Only the top of book. But you should still see bars based on the top of book. We are looking into this now.

https://www.sierrachart.com/SupportBoard.php?PostID=191752#P191752

Ok we looked into this, the problem is the new Transact websocket data feed does not even provide best bid and ask size data either.

https://www.sierrachart.com/SupportBoard.php?PostID=191759#P191759


Stick to v1941 for the time being, as advised by Transact staff themselves:

FYI: Just got off phone with Transact. He had me revert back to version 1941 (last one to work before new socket) and Bid/Ask works fine. He said first time he's heard of it. He said stay on this version until further notice. So you guys can do your stuff wherever the problem may be.

Reference thread: https://www.sierrachart.com/SupportBoard.php?ThreadID=45433#P191815
[2019-09-13 04:49:55]
Marmany - Posts: 222
Been with TransAct since PFG went bust in 2012, no problems until they launched their own charting program 4 months ago. This was of no interest as it does not yet have auto trading. In my opinion they are discouraging auto trading from Sierra users. Put that idea to one of their Customer Service people a couple of weeks ago. He slammed the phone down on me.
Have switched to Dorman, the TTfix link works very well.
[2019-09-13 06:40:37]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
Put that idea to one of their Customer Service people a couple of weeks ago. He slammed the phone down on me.
This could be just because they do not want to provide any technical support related to this.

And it is not any different, when we say things like this in regards to telephone support on our website:
Often questions involve fees and costs for external services and especially questions about exchange fees. We do not earn any money these fees and costs. Furthermore, the rules surrounding exchange fees are illogical, confusing and unfair to put it kindly. It is not proper for us to be spending time on the telephone at our expense and time answering questions about things that we do not control and that we earn no money from. It simply is not worth our time and we have no interest in this whatsoever. If we would get a question like this is from an open phone line, which you are not paying for at 50 USD per hour, we would hang up the phone promptly on you. We have zero tolerance for these types of questions. This particular item ranks near the top as to one of the reasons we will not provide an open telephone line.

Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-09-13 06:41:28
[2019-09-13 07:19:47]
40winks - Posts: 185
And it is not any different, when we say things like this in regards to telephone support on our website:

SC Support, your business model is different from Transact.

You earn by providing a trading platform with engineering support. Transact earns through commissions from their clients.

Marmany's Transact broker has no right to slam down the phone, no matter what. I bet you would be displeased too, if your broker slams the phone on you.

I appreciate Marmany for sharing this bad experience. It's time to switch brokers for me too.

Shame on Transact.
[2019-09-13 12:26:01]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
So you know we are in close contact with top people at Transact and no one is rude to us and they are ready for us to test again with their revised websocket trading interface which we will today.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-09-13 15:07:25
[2019-09-13 14:55:52]
User347037 - Posts: 86
while Transact ... and taking other side of the loosing position (which by the way is illegal).

Support,

There was a post this morning applied to this thread using my account that made some presumptuous accusations against Transact. Specifically about them "taking other side" of their customers trades. I suspect there is a possible identity theft happening and someone have gained access to my credentials. I was able to delete the post as it was linked to my account and have opened an account support ticket to address this problem.

For the record: I have not made that post and had no intention of making one. I have also changed the password to my account.

Please let me know what other steps can be taken to prevent this from happening again.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-09-13 15:12:07
[2019-09-13 15:04:49]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
Changing the password is important. We also need to see how to log out any other user who is using your account on this board. We will check on that.

For your information, the IP of that post above, that you did not make is from New Jersey.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-09-13 15:05:37
[2019-09-13 15:10:41]
User347037 - Posts: 86
Thank you for looking into this. Hopefully changing the password to a much stronger one will be sufficient.
[2019-09-18 16:18:12]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
Transact is now supporting Trading through their websocket connection for Simulated Live and Demo. You will need to run Sierra Chart prerelease version 1989 for proper support for this. Some issues were resolved. Update with Help >> Download Prerelease.

This has been thoroughly tested by Sierra Chart and also Transact has done testing.

Live trading is currently not supported, only simulated trading using the Simulated Live connection or demo connection. Live trading will come soon.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-09-18 16:18:31
[2019-09-19 13:36:37]
User358559 - Posts: 9
Seems to work well but SC Dom does not show market depth levels
[2019-09-19 13:54:46]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
Yes we will remind them about the market depth data now.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
[2019-09-19 14:04:02]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
Regarding Market Depth data on the websocket connection this was their response:
We are looking into adding the depth. I do not have a timeline.

Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-09-19 14:04:09
[2019-09-19 18:51:09]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
Letting you know, that Transact has added best bid size and ask size fields to their websocket data feed and that will be out in a day or two. It will need a new version of Sierra Chart which we may release this evening or tomorrow.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-09-19 18:51:25
[2019-09-23 10:58:18]
User212764 - Posts: 204
Is this available in prerelease 1991?
[2019-09-23 11:00:50]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
Yes.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
[2019-09-24 18:58:09]
User63632 - Posts: 38
v 1991 not showing orders/order fills on charts with transact bridge. Market depth on SC dome not yet working yet
[2019-09-25 09:26:09]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
In regards to post #91, make sure there is no checkmark by Trade >> Trade Simulation Mode. More information is here:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?page=doc/TransAct.php#Trading

We know about the depth limitation. That will be available next week.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
[2019-09-29 15:34:11]
User316362 - Posts: 121
Have the issues with TransAct been resolved yet? Anyone?

I last tried v1991. I tested with TransAct support on trading from the charts. They claimed that the order price being passed from Sierra was incorrect and shut off trading.
I believe subsequently that Sierra corrected this problem.

However, I have not tested with them since. They kept saying everything was working from their side.

In any case, I have two questions;

1. Is live trading from the charts working with TransAct now?
2. If so, are the orders also reflected in the TransAct DOM (Ladder) at the same time as it was with the old TransAct Bridge (v 1941)?

Anyone?
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-09-29 16:15:34
[2019-09-29 17:27:49]
User212764 - Posts: 204
I noticed this reply from SC Engineering on an unrelated issue: https://www.sierrachart.com/SupportBoard.php?PostID=193028#P193028

you need to update Sierra Chart to the latest version and that latest version does support trading with Transact. Instructions:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?page=doc/SoftwareDownload.php#FastUpdate

So there is no problem with updating and you are far better off. The websocket connection at this point in time is far more reliable than the bridge.

I tried it out on a fresh install of v1991 on one of my dev laptops. Worked like a charm, with one major exception.

1. Trading from the chart worked as expected. Still no market depth data on the Chart/Trade DOM though.
2. Orders showed up at the same time on the open Transact DOM, just like it did with the legacy AT bridge.

However...

3. Subscription to symbols listed in the Quoteboard and/or Intraday File Update List (IFUL) in v1991 is patchy, at best,
unlike the old TA Bridge in v1941.

Regardless of how many symbols are listed in the Quoteboard and IFUL, I'd expect all those symbols to be subscribed as available, and actively reporting data during market hours.
This currently is not the case with websocket connection in v1991.

In fact, it is the one remaining issue (aside from the promised market depth data on the DOM),
that SC and Transact should fully address before certifying the new websocket connection as ready for primetime.

During market hours, the attached Quoteboard works as intended in v1941 (with the old TA bridge).
Not so in v1991, as the websocket doesn't subscribe and populate all of the active symbols for whatever reason.
In fact, one has to disconnect and reconnect the data feed several times, in the hope that the websocket connection will FULLY populate the Quoteboard with all of the working symbols with active data.

Perhaps SC Engineering could take a closer look at this issue with Transact so that users of the older TA bridge in v1941 can finally migrate to the current versions of SC once and for all.
attachmentQB_20190926.SymbolList - Attached On 2019-09-29 16:55:11 UTC - Size: 315 B - 10 views
[2019-09-30 11:32:02]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
They claimed that the order price being passed from Sierra was incorrect and shut off trading.
I believe subsequently that Sierra corrected this problem.

However, I have not tested with them since. They kept saying everything was working from their side.

In any case, I have two questions;

1. Is live trading from the charts working with TransAct now?
2. If so, are the orders also reflected in the TransAct DOM (Ladder) at the same time as it was with the old TransAct Bridge (v 1941)?
Yes, this is resolved and working properly. The problem was that Transact uses integers for order prices and market data and those represent the number of ticks. So to translate these values to the true floating-point value, requires the use of a multiplier. This multiplier was at the default value of 1 when using one of the Sierra Chart data feeds. This was the reason for the order price issue. It is resolved in 1991.

In regards to post # 94, we definitely see this as an issue on the Transact side. And also 1993 will support market depth from Transact.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
[2019-09-30 12:33:41]
User212764 - Posts: 204
we definitely see this as an issue on the Transact side. And also 1993 will support market depth from Transact.

Perhaps, if you haven't already, you could relay the issue with subscribing to all active symbols in the QuoteBoard to Transact.

I will load a current copy of v1993 on a dev box and see what the impact of the changes are vis-a-vis market depth data from Transact in the SC chart/trade DOM.

---

Also just received this in the message log for v1991 64-bit (bulid 28578M)

Price Websocket | Received frame with length 122936 | 2019-09-30 07:41:02.416
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 122936 | 2019-09-30 07:41:02.418
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 122936 | 2019-09-30 07:41:02.558
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 122936 | 2019-09-30 07:41:02.590
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 122936 | 2019-09-30 07:41:02.611
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 122936 | 2019-09-30 07:41:02.638
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 122936 | 2019-09-30 07:41:02.669
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 122936 | 2019-09-30 07:41:02.688
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 122936 | 2019-09-30 07:41:02.845
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 122936 | 2019-09-30 07:41:02.848
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 122936 | 2019-09-30 07:41:02.994
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 122936 | 2019-09-30 07:41:03.351
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 122936 | 2019-09-30 07:41:03.352
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 122936 | 2019-09-30 07:41:03.494
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 122936 | 2019-09-30 07:41:03.640
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 122936 | 2019-09-30 07:41:03.650
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 122936 | 2019-09-30 07:41:03.783
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 122936 | 2019-09-30 07:41:03.935
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 122936 | 2019-09-30 07:41:03.947
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 122936 | 2019-09-30 07:41:04.124
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 122936 | 2019-09-30 07:41:04.137
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 122936 | 2019-09-30 07:41:04.139
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 122936 | 2019-09-30 07:41:04.298
TransAct WS | Received frame with length 122926 | 2019-09-30 07:41:04.298
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 84480 | 2019-09-30 07:41:04.313
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 84480 | 2019-09-30 07:41:04.313
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 84480 | 2019-09-30 07:41:04.335
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 84480 | 2019-09-30 07:41:04.486
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 84480 | 2019-09-30 07:41:04.493
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 84480 | 2019-09-30 07:41:04.633
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 84480 | 2019-09-30 07:41:04.653
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 84480 | 2019-09-30 07:41:04.820
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 84480 | 2019-09-30 07:41:04.962
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 84480 | 2019-09-30 07:41:05.116
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 84480 | 2019-09-30 07:41:05.286
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 84480 | 2019-09-30 07:41:05.437
TransAct WS | Received frame with length 84470 | 2019-09-30 07:41:05.437
Received Date-time from server. Delay adjusted UTC Date-time: 2019-09-30 11:58:57.015. Round-trip delay: 00:00:00.245 | 2019-09-30 07:58:56.831
Computer time to server time difference: 00:00:00.184 | 2019-09-30 07:58:56.831
Successfully set the system Date-time to: 2019-09-30 11:58:57.015 UTC. | 2019-09-30 07:58:57.015
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 132959 | 2019-09-30 08:13:56.388
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 132959 | 2019-09-30 08:13:56.721
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 132959 | 2019-09-30 08:13:57.041
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 132959 | 2019-09-30 08:13:57.207
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 132959 | 2019-09-30 08:13:57.418
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 132959 | 2019-09-30 08:13:57.598
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 132959 | 2019-09-30 08:13:57.793
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 132959 | 2019-09-30 08:13:57.800
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 132959 | 2019-09-30 08:13:57.957
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 132959 | 2019-09-30 08:13:57.961
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 132959 | 2019-09-30 08:13:58.126
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 132959 | 2019-09-30 08:13:58.312
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 132959 | 2019-09-30 08:13:58.470
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 132959 | 2019-09-30 08:13:58.473
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 132959 | 2019-09-30 08:13:58.659
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 132959 | 2019-09-30 08:13:58.665
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 132959 | 2019-09-30 08:13:58.697
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 132959 | 2019-09-30 08:13:58.742
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 132959 | 2019-09-30 08:13:58.757
Price Websocket | Received frame with length 132959 | 2019-09-30 08:13:58.921
TransAct WS | Received frame with length 132949 | 2019-09-30 08:13:58.921

Message log also sent for analysis. Thanks again for your support.
[2019-09-30 19:54:32]
User212764 - Posts: 204
So in v1993 with the Transact WS websocket connection, the Quoteboard now does not show the following fields at all (which worked previously in v1991):

Bid Ask BidSize AskSize BidAskSpread


Could you verify and let Transact know about it, since it seems to coincide with the release of Market Depth Data on the SC DOM.
[2019-09-30 21:32:59]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
In regards to post #96, contact Transact about this . They should be able to tell from their server-side what the issue is.

We will remove those messages. That is provides additional confirmation to us, that this problem with lost connections and websocket frame corruptions was definitively never on the Sierra Chart side. The corruption was coming from the Transact side. We did indicate that previously and that is with certainty.


In regards to post #97, that is something we need to take care of. That will be solved in the next release.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
[2019-10-01 14:33:04]
User358559 - Posts: 9
This morning v1993 (10 am EST) charts lagging in CL with Transact Dom. Changed to 1941 and now no lag even in quick moves. Any suggestions
[2019-10-01 14:43:16]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
No suggestions from our side. Transact will need to resolve.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
[2019-10-01 16:05:55]
User316362 - Posts: 121
I see no reflection of trade entered on Chart in TransAct DOM or visa verse at all . in 1991 and 1993.
[2019-10-01 17:54:16]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
Make sure that Trade >> Trade Simulation Mode On is disabled. Also refer to:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?page=doc/TransAct.php#Trading
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-10-01 17:55:03
[2019-10-01 18:40:51]
User316362 - Posts: 121
The Trade >> Trade Simulation Mode On is disabled.

And I ran the experiment again. Doesn't work

I'll take it up with TransAct
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-10-01 18:47:21
[2019-10-02 20:19:28]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
Yes you definitely have to do that. We cannot help with this.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
[2019-10-16 20:08:44]
User350414 - Posts: 5
A disaster, really a disaster I have no other words....

Price lags 1 second in normal condition and 4/5 seconds in fast market
Total freezing on market close

What's going on?

I contacted transact support....they suggest to set chart update to 800 ms, lol

Your comment?
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-10-16 20:09:01
[2019-10-16 20:52:51]
User350414 - Posts: 5
I installed the build 1941 and it seems to work fine

Please explain the reason for that

Every Transact user has to use this version (1941) to avoid issues?
Since I have to pay Sierra every month, I need to know what I have to do, and if the version 1941 is the solution for now and if this build has no other issues with their WS

Thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-10-16 20:55:31
[2019-10-16 21:20:25]
User212764 - Posts: 204
Read post#17 and #18 above carefully. The answer is there.

TL;DR - use 1941 as data feed source and latest version(s) as destination.
[2019-10-16 21:22:57]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
In regards to post #105 we do believe this is a server-side issue. The chart update interval is totally irrelevant here.

And we want to make one comment where we have said, that the connectivity using the websocket connection, is definitely better than the bridge program. This is a statement from our perspective, and regarding the method of connectivity and the directness to the Transact server, and the degree of control Sierra Chart has over the connectivity. It is absolutely superior but if the websocket feed has a problem from the server, well then it will be worse than the old bridge. But this is not something which our statements are in relation to.

In regards to post #106 it may be the best thing to stay with 1941. You can also look at other supported Trading services.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
[2019-10-23 11:15:38]
User907968 - Posts: 170
What is the current situation with the Transact websocket connnection, is live trading now supported?
[2019-10-23 11:22:18]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
Yes it is supported and well tested. There are no problems using it.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
[2019-10-23 13:30:35]
User63632 - Posts: 38
Updated from 1941 to current version and all TPO charts are blank. Since I use Transact, do I need to update something within SC?
[2019-10-23 14:13:35]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
In regards to post #111 and TPO charts, we can call you to look into this. Let us know if that is fine.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-10-23 14:13:47
[2019-10-23 14:34:13]
User63632 - Posts: 38
Yes a call will be fine.do you have cell #
Thank you
[2019-10-23 15:36:50]
User358559 - Posts: 9
Transact says:
Up until now, Level 5 SC features (profile, numbers bars, etc.) were not blocked from use by Level 3 subscribers. Now they are. this was done by Sierra Chart not us.

so an additional charge of $10/mo is necessary to activate level 5 through Transact...between slow data transfer with Transact websocket connection and now this, it has been quite frustrating for last few months
[2019-10-23 16:12:48]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321

Up until now, Level 5 SC features (profile, numbers bars, etc.) were not blocked from use by Level 3 subscribers. Now they are. this was done by Sierra Chart not us.
Yes, Transact did have a favorable benefit in this regard mainly for simplicity with billing, but this was brought in line with the same price that everyone receives for the Advanced features .

.between slow data transfer with Transact websocket connection
This is going to be a Transact market data feed issue.

We also offer Transact users special pricing and this is explained here:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?page=doc/TransAct.php#SierraChartDiscountForTransactUsers
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-10-23 16:14:38
[2019-10-23 16:46:34]
User358559 - Posts: 9
So to be clear, to receive the 30% off level 5 I must access through SC or through Tansact?

Thank you
[2019-10-23 16:54:29]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
In this particular case you would be paying for Sierra Chart yourself.

You should have a shortcut on your desktop for starting Sierra Chart. So you will want to use that going forward and just pay for usage time as explained here:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?page=doc/TransAct.php#SierraChartDiscountForTransactUsers
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-10-23 16:54:43
[2019-10-23 17:10:16]
jmt816 - Posts: 22
Is that discount on top of the discount from paying annually? i am a Transact user but have also had my own direct Sierra account for awhile, in order to use Sierra for stocks as well as futures, and currently pay annually. Am I eligible for this discount in addition? and if so, what do i need to do to receive it (i've recently renewed and paid)
[2019-10-28 09:43:50]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
No it is not an additional discount.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
[2019-10-31 17:07:48]
User358559 - Posts: 9
I know you have been dealing with this for a while, but v. 1997 and now 2006 lagging in rapid movement environment with Transact..Is it on their end or SC?
Their DOM does not lag, just the charts. Spoke with them
and they seem to think it is possibly a issue with SC.
Any suggestions?
[2019-10-31 20:16:08]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
Data lagging is always going to be an issue external to Sierra Chart:
Https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?page=doc/helpdetails4.html

And if 2006 still experiences it, then Transact still has not resolved the problem. It definitely could not be an issue within Sierra Chart. Their own trading software uses a completely different data feed. And it is also a UDP feed.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
[2019-10-31 22:01:19]
User358559 - Posts: 9
Lag time today with oil futures was as much as 30 sec. before charts matched transact Dom.
I will discuss with them since you are sure on your end. Frustrating
[2019-10-31 22:24:44]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
Yes we are 100 percent certain the issue could not be on the Sierra Chart side.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
[2019-11-07 15:15:54]
User63632 - Posts: 38
Still having issues with lag in data for transact/ web socket. Having spoke with them this morning. They say their aware of the issue and at times the data bundles clog and are working with you folks to resolve web socket data transfer. Is this so?

Will switching to version 1941 temporarily resolve the problem until transact gets web socket able to transfer data at all times.
Thank you
[2019-11-08 01:58:37]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
They really do not need to involve us in this, unless there is some change in the protocol. We have not heard from them regarding this. However, we have made it clear to Transact, that Sierra Chart has very efficient and well designed receiving and processing of the data.

Yes switching back to 1941 is a temporary solution.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-11-08 01:59:18
[2019-11-08 21:44:15]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
And just for the record, the same network communication core which is used in every installation of Sierra Chart is what is used on our server for transmitting historical data to users and real-time data. And also processing high-bandwidth exchange feeds which can be up to 70,000 symbols. It is a very high performance multithreaded network component which can easily handle data rates of a gigabit per second.

If this were a client-side problem, when you notice to Transact feed is lagging, just simply see if Sierra Chart is responsive. If it is, then there is no abnormal load within Sierra Chart. And even if there is an abnormal load, it really does not cause the data feed to lag within Sierra Chart beyond a couple of seconds.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-11-08 21:45:25
[2019-11-09 01:59:36]
User63632 - Posts: 38
Perhaps I have not been clear enough in description of the Data lag problem. I apologize.

Sometimes during periods of rapid movement. The Transact Dom is not lagging, but the charts themselves are lagging and by more than a few seconds. Then occasionally If I compare the chart from another platform,the SC chart will not display the entire move after catching up to match the Transact DOM displayed price, so I have to delete the .scid file for that symbol and reload the chart to represent what had actually occurred.

So if the charts are lagging and not the Transact DOM, is that still a Transact/infinity issue or SC issue?
Thank you
[2019-11-10 01:30:32]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 78321
Yes it is a Transact issue.

The following message was sent to Transact earlier today:
we continue to hear users who are having lagging problems and it looks poorly for us because they are not seeing the problem with your software and that would be because I think your software is still using the binary feed and using UDP from what I understand.

I think that providing market depth data in the JSON messages should be optional. And then we can give the user an option to turn off the depth.

,the SC chart will not display the entire move after catching up to match the Transact DOM displayed price,
This is because after the send buffer on the Transact side, reaches a certain amount (We think 1 MB from memory), they just discard it. They did tell that to us. We told them instead they should close the connection and then when Sierra Chart reconnects, the missing data will be downloaded.

so I have to delete the .scid file for that symbol and reload the chart to represent what had actually occurred.
You only need to follow the procedure here in this case:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?page=doc/HistoricalIntradayData.html#RetryDownloadDataInChart
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level

Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-11-10 01:33:35

To post a message in this thread, you need to login with your Sierra Chart account:

Login

Login Page - Create Account