<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[Forex Software — What about announcing FSB v3.0 ?]]></title>
		<link>https://forexsb.com/forum/topic/4195/what-about-announcing-fsb-v30/</link>
		<atom:link href="https://forexsb.com/forum/feed/rss/topic/4195/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<description><![CDATA[The most recent posts in What about announcing FSB v3.0 ?.]]></description>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 11:48:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>PunBB</generator>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: What about announcing FSB v3.0 ?]]></title>
			<link>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/19821/#p19821</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<div class="quotebox"><blockquote><p>So multi-core / net4 version will be Pro only?</p></blockquote></div><p>Yes, that&#039;s is my plan.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (Popov)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 11:48:59 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/19821/#p19821</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: What about announcing FSB v3.0 ?]]></title>
			<link>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/19817/#p19817</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<div class="quotebox"><blockquote><p>I still insisty on possibility of GPU compute.</p></blockquote></div><p>It depends on the success of FSB Pro. If we manage to finance further development, we can think about it.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (Popov)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 11:01:08 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/19817/#p19817</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: What about announcing FSB v3.0 ?]]></title>
			<link>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/19816/#p19816</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>.net4 for only Pro version? Can use CPU optimizaitions of net4 but if i understand correctly they use different code branch.</p><p>So multi-core / net4 version will be Pro only?</p><p>I still insisty on possibility of GPU compute.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (kukreknecmi)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 10:57:12 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/19816/#p19816</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: What about announcing FSB v3.0 ?]]></title>
			<link>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/19661/#p19661</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<div class="quotebox"><blockquote><p>because he thought a &quot;tick&quot; and a &quot;pip&quot; were the same thing.</p></blockquote></div><p>It&#039;s exactly how FSB works now.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (Popov)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 22:31:41 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/19661/#p19661</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: What about announcing FSB v3.0 ?]]></title>
			<link>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/19657/#p19657</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<div class="quotebox"><cite>Popov wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Also I can add<br />- correct representation of Pips and Points (Point is always the last digit. Pips is 4th or 2nd digit). All strategy and indicator parameters to be in Pips. It will make a strategy working in the same way in 4 and 5 digit quotations.<br />- Automatic update (like Chrome)</p><br /><p>What do you think?</p></blockquote></div><p>I agree that points should always be the last digit but I think it will be confusing having the indicator parameters in pips. I have recently come across a broker using the term pip to mean a movement in the last digit, presumably because he thought a &quot;tick&quot; and a &quot;pip&quot; were the same thing. </p><p>I think automatic updates should be optional.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (SpiderMan)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 22:23:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/19657/#p19657</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: What about announcing FSB v3.0 ?]]></title>
			<link>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/19652/#p19652</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<div class="quotebox"><blockquote><p>I think it means just a new section, like FSB Pro has its own one.</p></blockquote></div><p>Exactly that!</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (Popov)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 21:54:55 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/19652/#p19652</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: What about announcing FSB v3.0 ?]]></title>
			<link>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/19650/#p19650</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<div class="quotebox"><cite>Blaiserboy wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I wonder if new forum would cause people to miss all of the valuable information in current forum, it is like a textbook for understanding what is happening. I can see reasons for new forum, however, a new person would miss the education in this forum... so maybe&nbsp; have to consider how to reference current work.</p><p>Just my thoughts at this time...</p></blockquote></div><p>I think it means just a new section, like FSB Pro has its own one. Nothing disappears. Other than that this is a good idea, changes in FSB are somewhat fundamental, so a differentation between old and new is useful.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (footon)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 21:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/19650/#p19650</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: What about announcing FSB v3.0 ?]]></title>
			<link>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/19645/#p19645</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Hello Pop its a nice step forward congratulate </p><p>my two cents will come from my work in branding and marketing </p><p>Now we have a new product directed to the same type pf customers , and always customers need the easy way&nbsp; so my recommendations will be:&nbsp; adding a completely separate part in the main forum here with a complete sub divisions discussing the new Ver3&nbsp; until you complete the whole missing things needed by Users which is the real challenge these things are&#039;&#039; good user manual , a very detailed fsb language and coding&nbsp; manual ,adding more indicators &#039;&#039;&nbsp; after that you can separate the forum</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (ahmedalhoseny)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 18:34:11 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/19645/#p19645</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: What about announcing FSB v3.0 ?]]></title>
			<link>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/19642/#p19642</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>I wonder if new forum would cause people to miss all of the valuable information in current forum, it is like a textbook for understanding what is happening. I can see reasons for new forum, however, a new person would miss the education in this forum... so maybe&nbsp; have to consider how to reference current work.</p><p>Just my thoughts at this time...</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (Blaiserboy)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 17:29:34 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/19642/#p19642</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: What about announcing FSB v3.0 ?]]></title>
			<link>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/19641/#p19641</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Hey Popov,</p><p>No more ambiguity when generating and sharing systems...</p><p>Sounds great to me! <img src="https://forexsb.com/forum/img/smilies/smile.png" width="15" height="15" alt="smile" /></p><p>Have fun!</p><p>Radar&nbsp; =8^)</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (Radar)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 17:10:52 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/19641/#p19641</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: What about announcing FSB v3.0 ?]]></title>
			<link>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/19639/#p19639</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>I forgot to say that after finishing with FSB, I&#039;ll start working on FST.<br />It will also accept the new indicators format in cs and dll.</p><p>If I go to FSB v3.0, I&#039;ll announce also FST 3.0</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (Popov)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 15:58:11 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/19639/#p19639</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[What about announcing FSB v3.0 ?]]></title>
			<link>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/19638/#p19638</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Current beta of FSB v2.91 has many changes comparing wit the last release v2.77</p><p>- new format of the indicators,<br />- overriding of the default indicators<br />- custom Top 10 sorting<br />- unified Optimizer and Generator criteria<br />- new file structure</p><p>Also I can add<br />- correct representation of Pips and Points (Point is always the last digit. Pips is 4th or 2nd digit). All strategy and indicator parameters to be in Pips. It will make a strategy working in the same way in 4 and 5 digit quotations.<br />- Automatic update (like Chrome)</p><p>All that drives me to announce the new FSB as v3.0<br />It will have a new forum.<br />Its indicators will be listed in the repo.<br />Its strategies will be listed in the repo.<br />It will be 100% compatible with FSB Pro.</p><p>Current FSB v2.77 will remain as legacy version with its strategies and indicators in the forum.</p><br /><p>What do you think?</p><p>Please moderators and advanced user to leave a note!</p><p>It&#039;s not a final decision yet, but probably is a good step forward.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (Popov)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 15:49:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/19638/#p19638</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
