8.25 Update

Discussion in 'OptionVue Forum' started by Andreas, Jul 14, 2017.

  1. Bryan Doyle

    Bryan Doyle Well-Known Member

    I have been in contact with OV and they found and fixed the issue. It will be in the next release.
     
  2. Len Yates

    Len Yates Active Member

    When working with a futures-based asset, the Matrix does not include previously realized G/L’s. This problem has been fixed for the next release, due out this week.
    The Matrix’s Trade ID selector doesn’t update when switching accounts. This has also been fixed in the upcoming release.
    In Define Options, the Expirations table now uses official expiration dates. So if you want the 1Sep expiration, enter “Sep 1”. Monthly options work just fine now in 8.25. If you are using a prior version, they could still be difficult.
    Thank you for your patience. We are always working to expand our testing checklists.
     
    john likes this.
  3. Bryan Doyle

    Bryan Doyle Well-Known Member

    Thanks Len. We all appreciate when you provide updates here.
     
  4. TOPS

    TOPS Member

    This issue is still not fixed. My P&L is off by tens of thousands of dollars.
     
  5. jhon

    jhon New Member

    I have the same issue with P&L .
     
  6. Len Yates

    Len Yates Active Member

    We are coming out with version 8.26 today or tomorrow. It contains the fixes you're looking for and we hope that you will be pleased.
     
    jhon likes this.
  7. PK

    PK Well-Known Member

    Len, Thanks a lot for responding. At least in my case, I appreciate that your work has enabled a lot of traders to participate in the options market in a meaningful way. Notwithstanding the unique features OV provides, I would feel more comfortable with the implementation of new features - and I am sure that most of the users of OV agree on that there have been quite a few - knowing whether thess new features are tested and to which extent. As a former consumer of different kinds of debian/linux distributions, I always felt well informed about the maturity of new implementations. Leaving a whole community of OV users with the impression to be apha version testers does not build confidence. My suggestion would be to simply indicate at which stage new developments are, leave some time for alpha and beta testers to provide feedback (here at CD there are many) and then launch a stable version for dummies (and those of us who do not like to lose money because of aberrant risk graphs an PnL estimations we are paying for to plan our trading).
     
  8. Len Yates

    Len Yates Active Member

    You're right. I cannot argue. We need better testing practices. One thing that happens is that I can slip in a last minute improvement, thinking that it can't possibly cause any problem, but I can be wrong about that sometimes. I should "lock the program down" for a week prior to release (testing week) and not make any further changes except to solve the problems that come up during testing. Regarding beta test: We have two good beta testers who are helpful, but they might not check everything in the program because they only use the program in certain ways. And if we send the program out to a dozen further users who say they're willing to beta test, invariably we receive little to no feedback from them. We try to impress upon them the need for their feedback but it doesn't seem to help. We just don't hear anything back. This has happened several times over the years so we are not very encouraged about beta test. The main thing we've been doing is expanding our in-house testing checklist. That should help.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice