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:

Post by AFJ Garner » Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:51 am

I shall certainly stick with 2.9.3.

I was very grateful to a fellow forum member for a copy of his wonderful little data manager application - it re-inforced my thinking on the importance of not having to rely on one data provider and its software. It has renewed my thoughts of learning some simple programming myself.

I had lunch with another fellow forum member and friend yesterday. He has the advantage of being a sophisticated software professional and is hard at work with his team producing his own data cruncher to collect data from wheresoever he chooses and to apply his own concatenating methods.

Its such a basic necessity for most of us that total reliance on CSI seems an absurdity.

zacharyoxman
Roundtable Knight
Roundtable Knight
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 11:19 am
Location: California

CSI/TB

Post by zacharyoxman » Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:06 am

Anthony et. all,

That TB tool posted does a wonderful job of threshing out data errors. It's saved me more than a few times, and in fact, I run it in its own version of TB entitled RUN ME FIRST...;)

I learned my lesson when CSI, for some unknown reason, stopped updating a Heating Oil contract that cost me money on an exit that should have occurred but did not....

And data gaps, I see these issues frequently. Fortunately, since using the tool nightly, I've had no issues at all with bad data.

It takes me a VERY long time to decide on a CSI upgrade. I've had such insane issues with the data every time I've changed in the past. It blows my mind that a company that knows its customers depend on consistency of data can have such issues with a software upgrade.

Zachary Oxman

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

Re: CSI/TB

Post by RedRock » Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:52 am

zacharyoxman wrote:Anthony et. all,
It takes me a VERY long time to decide on a CSI upgrade. I've had such insane issues with the data every time I've changed in the past. It blows my mind that a company that knows its customers depend on consistency of data can have such issues with a software upgrade.
Zachary Oxman
I fear they rationalize that 90% of their customers will blow out and not be back for the "upgrades". I've had to return to 2.9.3 the past three times Ive (with optimism and "faith" in CSIs reputation) Upgraded to latest version. Thy really need to return to their core business and focus on DATA, not pimping trading systems or partnering with venders. They risk killing the goose which gave them these options...

Someone here talked to CQG at some point? Other than the very high cost... There was some issue with limited back adjusting choices???

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

Post by AFJ Garner » Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:00 pm

Yep, I talked to CQG. And many others! I fear it is an option you must forget unless you have a data manager programme of your own to concatenate. I can't remember the details but even the technical staff I spoke to barely understood what I was talking about and had great difficulty in pointing to the right place in their virtually non-existent manual which discussed their virtually non-existant capability of producing back adjusted contracts.

zacharyoxman
Roundtable Knight
Roundtable Knight
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 11:19 am
Location: California

Re: CSI/TB

Post by zacharyoxman » Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:05 am

RedRock wrote:
zacharyoxman wrote:Anthony et. all,
It takes me a VERY long time to decide on a CSI upgrade. I've had such insane issues with the data every time I've changed in the past. It blows my mind that a company that knows its customers depend on consistency of data can have such issues with a software upgrade.
Zachary Oxman
I fear they rationalize that 90% of their customers will blow out and not be back for the "upgrades". I've had to return to 2.9.3 the past three times Ive (with optimism and "faith" in CSIs reputation) Upgraded to latest version. Thy really need to return to their core business and focus on DATA, not pimping trading systems or partnering with venders. They risk killing the goose which gave them these options...

Someone here talked to CQG at some point? Other than the very high cost... There was some issue with limited back adjusting choices???
Very true, good points.

It just kills me that every time I have to upgrade, it takes literally days to get everything straight....no good

Olli
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 5:30 am
Location: Southern Finland

UA 2.10.6

Post by Olli » Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:31 am

I had my version 2.9.3 falling to an endless loop, and I kept waiting it to straighten out until the size of temporary OUT file was a bit above 21 GB. Could not get pass that. So thought to try 2.10.6. Wrong decision.

UA 2.10.6 build 27 from last Thursday, Feb 28 2008, is still far from errrorless. I had my own Odysseia with it the whole last week: build 25 got stuck in computing contracts for NG, build 27 on CC.

The tech support emails you (when asked) the recent builds, but if you trade like me, problems.

I am falling back to 2.9.3, if it works with new updated files, which I asked for. Fear the worst.


Olli

Post Reply