| TWRoO said: ^ah excellent, we are very close... I didn't want to go into trying to average out increases myself without any proper sources... I haven't read the link you posted yet but I guess from your table they did not have a lengthy period at 1.2 million like I had, but had slight increases leading up to 1.5 million. (though it works out very similar) by the way how do you make those tables like that? is it from a seperate program and pasted in or did you use the editing features from the table function on VGC? --- Also as I added in my last post, researching this using VGC seems to have brought up something wrong with the past numbers, mainly with the end of March numbers, but also end of June seems to have VGC too close to the shipments too. |
@tables,
I paste them in from my Open Office spreadsheet, although I think I could make them with the VGC tables as well they would be a real pain in the ass that way.
@averages,
The averages I used are basically educated guesses. I started by filling in the production rates which we had information about and then worked out from there. Next I went back and estimated the average based on what I thought the rate was at the beginning of the month and the end of the month. I think this is actually where our difference in numbers comes from TBH, and its insignificant enough that I'm really not worried about it.
@VGC data issues,
I'm going to wait and see what the FY report looks like before I worry to much. I know that supply was extremely tight during those early quarters so some of the low 200k type numbers don't really surprise me as much as they normally would. The 70k seems to be the real potential issue and it falls during a period where I think it is just as likely that we're off as it is that VGC is off. The production rates leading up to and during March '07 aren't that clear imo.
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
