CSI UA 2.10.0

Use this forum to discuss data providers like CSI, charting, or other non testing software.
AFJ Garner
Roundtable Knight
Roundtable Knight
Posts: 2040
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: London
Contact:

CSI UA 2.10.0

Post by AFJ Garner » Wed May 23, 2007 3:11 pm

A few months ago I was foolish enough to be persuaded to upgrade my CSI UA software: I had subscribed to stock data and was told the new version was much faster to download and distribute.

Back at the beginning of the year I had had a long position in the CGB which I exited on 31st January 2007.

I was concerned therefore when the TB trade log this morning suggested I had exited this position only a few days ago on 18th May. I always also double check the charts each day with Metastock and sure enough there it was, supposedly I should have been long right up to this week.

I then went to CSI UA 2.10.0 to check for data errors. I discovered the problem was with the March 2007 contract – there was no data between 19th January and 30th January inclusive. This had distorted my indicators. I started to check a few other files – data had been wiped out for the same dates in all futures, stocks, cash etc in all portfolios. Getting re-placement data is useless – I tried that on a few samples then when I downloaded again, sure enough UA chopped out the same dates all over again.

I am not sure on what date my version of CSI unilaterally decided to wipe out data for this period.

I was advised to download 2.10.1. Which solved the missing data problem.

But in the ASCI files it creates, it leaves no final blank line, no carriage return at the end of the last line of data. And that causes TB to crash.

There is no fix until CSI bring out 2.10.2

sluggo
Roundtable Knight
Roundtable Knight
Posts: 2986
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 2:50 pm

Post by sluggo » Wed May 23, 2007 4:26 pm

Maybe a small MS-DOS .BAT file would be a temporary work-around?

If you created a file that ONLY contained <CR><LF> and nothing else (calling it perhaps "uglyfix.txt") then you could make a .BAT file which appended it onto all your CSI ASCII files, rather like

Code: Select all

  COPY  SF_0080B.TXT  +uglyfix.txt  SF_0080B.TXT
  COPY  JY_0080B.TXT  +uglyfix.txt  JY_0080B.TXT
  COPY  BP_0080B.TXT  +uglyfix.txt  BP_0080B.TXT
You could run the .BAT file every day after exporting ASCII from UA. Yes it is disgusting. But if it works ....

AFJ Garner
Roundtable Knight
Roundtable Knight
Posts: 2040
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by AFJ Garner » Thu May 24, 2007 1:45 am

Hmm, many thanks for the thought - I will give it a try. I have never used batch files but as an old dog I am nevertheless willing to (try to) learn new tricks.
A

Turtle40
Roundtable Knight
Roundtable Knight
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:53 pm
Location: Guernsey, Channel Islands

Post by Turtle40 » Mon May 28, 2007 8:50 am

Hi AFJ,

I had a similar problem with 2.10.1 which rendered TB un-useable. I notice that CSI have offered 2.10.2 for download, withdrawing 2.10.1 and 2.9.4.

Let's hope this version, which I am downloading now, works better!

AFJ Garner
Roundtable Knight
Roundtable Knight
Posts: 2040
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by AFJ Garner » Mon May 28, 2007 10:11 am

Thanks for the notification. They told me the blank line would be a portfolio option in this latest version.

edb
Roundtable Knight
Roundtable Knight
Posts: 457
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 3:31 pm

Post by edb » Mon May 28, 2007 1:30 pm

Unless I'm beta testing, I wait until the ".3" version is available before upgrading. Can't remember where I originally heard that recommendation... Advantage is you have a stable program, and probably won't have to bother with upgrading for another 1.5 years.

-edb

AFJ Garner
Roundtable Knight
Roundtable Knight
Posts: 2040
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by AFJ Garner » Mon May 28, 2007 1:37 pm

The problem I had is that they did not tell me what an early Beta version it was that they suggested I use.

I was assured by someone in technical support (not Rudi) that the version suggested was well tested and seemed fine.

That turned out to be..........well, rather wide of the mark.

Like you, prior to that I had not upgraded through many versions. I will never be persuaded to use their Beta again. Live and learn.

I sometimes find technical support at CSI (how can I put this tactfully?) somewhat inpenetrable.

RedRock
Roundtable Knight
Roundtable Knight
Posts: 939
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Chicago

Post by RedRock » Mon May 28, 2007 6:00 pm

Gentlemen,

Please post an "ALL CLEAR" message when you feel CSI is safe to upgrade. I'm still on 2.9 early, and am happy about that at this point... Thanks AFJ Garner for bringing this to our attention!!

CSI may well be the cleanest and best database commercially available, but I have had an upgrade issue or two over the years as well. Probably why I don't rush out for the latest version anymore. But, would like to stay current and so please keep us posted on the latest version.

Thanks Much!!

Redrock

Turtle40
Roundtable Knight
Roundtable Knight
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:53 pm
Location: Guernsey, Channel Islands

Post by Turtle40 » Tue May 29, 2007 3:08 am

HI RR,

I "upgraded" to 2.10.2 yesterday on my backup machine. It works fine and TB is back to normal. However UA appears much the same from the outside, still looks very "old fashioned" compared to other software and takes an age to update. I only use it for the data as scrolling through graphs or adding indicators is just too slow. Exporting the data to third party software is the easiest way to view the the markets for me.

I am not a programmer in any shape or form but why can Worden design a program that takes seconds to update some 10,000 stocks yet UA clunks away taking ages to apparently do a similar thing.

Personally I wouldn't bother if your UA is working OK. I am sticking with 2.9.3 for my main machine as it seems virtually the same.

RedRock
Roundtable Knight
Roundtable Knight
Posts: 939
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Chicago

Post by RedRock » Tue May 29, 2007 3:51 am

Thanks Turtle40!

Sounds like no major reason to change what is already working just fine for my uses. Why ask for "issues"...

Good to know its working though. We'll probably have to "upgrade" at some point.

rr


Turtle40 wrote:HI RR,

I "upgraded" to 2.10.2 yesterday on my backup machine. It works fine and TB is back to normal. However UA appears much the same from the outside, still looks very "old fashioned" compared to other software and takes an age to update. I only use it for the data as scrolling through graphs or adding indicators is just too slow. Exporting the data to third party software is the easiest way to view the the markets for me.

I am not a programmer in any shape or form but why can Worden design a program that takes seconds to update some 10,000 stocks yet UA clunks away taking ages to apparently do a similar thing.

Personally I wouldn't bother if your UA is working OK. I am sticking with 2.9.3 for my main machine as it seems virtually the same.

AFJ Garner
Roundtable Knight
Roundtable Knight
Posts: 2040
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by AFJ Garner » Tue May 29, 2007 3:56 am

"Issues" with CSI seem to have a nasty habit of biting you viciously in the leg when you are not looking.

Look at my experience above: some time between Jan 31th this year and 16th May my version of CSI decided to chop out a chunk of daily data points for all my data series.

And it was days, weeks or months before I noticed.

sluggo
Roundtable Knight
Roundtable Knight
Posts: 2986
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 2:50 pm

Post by sluggo » Tue May 29, 2007 7:18 am

AFJ Garner wrote:And it was days, weeks or months before I noticed.
Please accept my condolences for your loss; and, please accept my good wishes that the following little Blox add-in tool may help prevent this occurring again in the future: viewtopic.php?p=23860&highlight=mintick#23860 . It includes a special test which gives you the capability to say "Tell me whenever there is a gap of no price information, longer than XX days" (you get to pick the value of XX). If you make it your habit to run the tool every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, it will no longer be "days, weeks, or months before you notice."

I myself was shocked, shocked to find that in some markets, week-long price gaps are not unheard of. Have a look at Tokyo Silver ("JSV") or the Morgan Stanley Taiwan Index futures ("STW") or Tokyo Aluminum traded at CCOM ("JOA"). Whew.

AFJ Garner
Roundtable Knight
Roundtable Knight
Posts: 2040
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by AFJ Garner » Tue May 29, 2007 8:25 am

Wonderful, thanks. An excellent blox and a very good suggestion indeed.

Happily I suffered no loss but I am astonished that I did not notice anything wrong between 16th May (the first date I KNOW the error was present) and the date I started this thread. How humiliating!

Still, life is, or should be a never ending learning process.

sluggo
Roundtable Knight
Roundtable Knight
Posts: 2986
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 2:50 pm

Post by sluggo » Tue May 29, 2007 8:54 am

One can't help but imagine the righteous grumblywhine messages of agony and resentment that would have flowed freely, if the mistake had occurred at a robo-brokerage.

AFJ Garner
Roundtable Knight
Roundtable Knight
Posts: 2040
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by AFJ Garner » Tue May 29, 2007 10:25 am

Sluggo

You are very naughty and you know it.

The failings I encountered at said brokers (as you well know) were a failure to carry out VERY specific instructions (such as trade quarterly crude not monthly) and failure to take proper care to avoid delivery.

I had spent many weeks setting up the instructions with the broker who was incapable of implementing my requests. For instance, instead of setting up a separate CSI portfolio with my choice of months to trade and other parameters he used a general client portfolio - is it surprising he got the wrong signals and traded the wrong months?

I don't consider myself arrogant or unreasonable and I am always willing to own up to my own mistakes. As I did above.

I would not (I hope) have blamed the broker for the failings of a CSI UA Beta. Which, of course, I should not have been using in the first place.

The problems I encountered with said broker were echoed by other clients who e-mailed me privately. So it was certainly not just me being unreasonable.

No, I am sorry, but you are off-side here.

Nonetheless you are always of great help for which I (and no doubt other forum members) are always grateful. And it is understandable and forgiveable that you should choose to undertake a little private ribbing at my expense.

Regards
A

RedRock
Roundtable Knight
Roundtable Knight
Posts: 939
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Chicago

Post by RedRock » Tue May 29, 2007 12:51 pm

sluggo wrote:One can't help but imagine the righteous grumblywhine messages of agony and resentment that would have flowed freely, if the mistake had occurred at a robo-brokerage.
Oooooo freely flowing righteous grumblywhine, Pour me a looong tall glass.... :lol:

Sometimes people are blindsided. Betrayed by friends we thought we could trust. As me pappy oll reliable, used to say.. Don't suppose Ive ever mentioned Oll reliable... "Trust everyone, but cut the cards." Guess its true for software as well.

AFJ Garner
Roundtable Knight
Roundtable Knight
Posts: 2040
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by AFJ Garner » Thu May 31, 2007 2:40 am

Interestig to note that CSI have now withdrawn all versions of UA except 2.9.3 which is hailed as "Stable Version".

edb
Roundtable Knight
Roundtable Knight
Posts: 457
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 3:31 pm

Post by edb » Thu May 31, 2007 8:56 am

Generally, I've learned to wait until ".3" version is out for a while... keeping an eye on "known problems list" during that wait:

http://www.csidata.com/custserv/updates/index.html#2102

Sometimes it takes more revisions than ".3"... take a look at this list (found from link on page above):

http://www.csidata.com/custserv/updates ... index.html

-edb

streetcat
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:37 am

Post by streetcat » Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:47 pm

I was using a broker to trade systems for me using CSI UA. There was a data error / software error that caused me to be long Yen for a few days when I should have been short. I was on vacation for a few days so my normal running of the charts that might have caught it did not happen. The cost could have been worse, but the net loss from both holding the wrong position and missing the short position was over $12000.00. The brokerage refused to make up for the loss, blaming data error. Since I had signed that agreement to hold them blameless for data error losses that we sign on opening accounts, I had no argument but to close the account.
Now I'm trading my own account and running the software carefully myself. The fact is, if you depend on the data, you need to still double check it. Brokers will not take the time to do that even though they are charging much more in commission to execute the trades for you. It is one more argument for taking things into your own hands. Broker assist should have been for ease, peace of mind and unemotional exectution. Not much good if you still need to watch it like a hawk!

Turtle40
Roundtable Knight
Roundtable Knight
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:53 pm
Location: Guernsey, Channel Islands

Post by Turtle40 » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:45 am

Just had a look at CSI latest software. Version 2.10.6 (beta) has returned.

Recently 2.10.5 came, went, came back and now has gone again(!). I think I will stick with 2.9.3 as it seems to work ok.

Why do they keep issuing and withdrawing newer versions? Aren't they tested properly before release?

Post Reply