Thanks Tomasz, That answers my question. Looks like I just need to
'shift' the TS exported data up 1 minute to compensate for how they
calculate their bars.

Appreciate the quick reply,

Jim

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Tomasz Janeczko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
> 
> 3 minute candle in AmiBroker represents time from 8:00:00 to 8:02:59
> as it should be.
> 
> The time stamp displayed on the top depends on the SETTINGS
> in Tools->Preferences->Intraday.
> It can show 8:00 (start time of the interval) or 8:02:59 (end time
of interval)
> or first tick/last tick.
> 
> Best regards,
> Tomasz Janeczko
> amibroker.com
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "jrswindle2001" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 6:09 PM
> Subject: [amibroker] Candle alignment (with Tradestation)
> 
> 
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > I've noticed that when I compare charts from AB with TS, the 1' charts
> > compare nicely, but when I choose a larger interval (for example 3'),
> > then candles no longer compare correctly. For example the first candle
> > in AB for the day is an 0801 candle and in TS it is an 0803 candle
> > (first time of data for the day is 0801). 
> > 
> > On a 5' bar it does the same thing. TS sums up the first 5 minutes and
> > then displays it, AB seems to put out an 0801 bar first, then starts
> > summing it up. 
> > 
> > Any ideas or suggestions on how to correlate these correctly? Seems
> > like AB should be summing up the first 3 or 5 minutes of data before
> > displaying it...  Is this a bug or am I missing a setting somewhere?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Jim
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Please note that this group is for discussion between users only.
> > 
> > To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly to 
> > SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
> > 
> > For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG:
> > http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/
> > 
> > For other support material please check also:
> > http://www.amibroker.com/support.html
> > 
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
>


Reply via email to