Hello All,
I have velodyne lidar data in .pcap format. How to convert .pcap data into ply file?Hello All,
I have velodyne lidar data in .pcap format. How to convert .pcap data into ply file? Hello All,
I have velodyne lidar data in .pcap format. How to convert .pcap data into ply file? 3d, lidar, pointcloud, 3dobject, lidar_data MATLAB Answers — New Questions

​

Hello everyone,
I’m currently working with the bnlssm package in MATLAB to model a nonlinear state-space system. My goal is to include explanatory variables in the state equation, but I’m encountering some challenges and need your help.
Specifically, I want to modify the state equation to include external explanatory variables , such as:

In this setup:
• is the state variable.
• is an explanatory variable (could be a vector or scalar).
• represents the influence of the explanatory variable on the state dynamics.

My Questions:
1. Does the bnlssm package support incorporating explanatory variables directly into the state equation?
2. If it does, are there any specific examples or documentation that demonstrate how to achieve this?
3. If not, is there a recommended workaround for including explanatory variables, such as extending the state vector or using another approach?Hello everyone,
I’m currently working with the bnlssm package in MATLAB to model a nonlinear state-space system. My goal is to include explanatory variables in the state equation, but I’m encountering some challenges and need your help.
Specifically, I want to modify the state equation to include external explanatory variables , such as:

In this setup:
• is the state variable.
• is an explanatory variable (could be a vector or scalar).
• represents the influence of the explanatory variable on the state dynamics.

My Questions:
1. Does the bnlssm package support incorporating explanatory variables directly into the state equation?
2. If it does, are there any specific examples or documentation that demonstrate how to achieve this?
3. If not, is there a recommended workaround for including explanatory variables, such as extending the state vector or using another approach? Hello everyone,
I’m currently working with the bnlssm package in MATLAB to model a nonlinear state-space system. My goal is to include explanatory variables in the state equation, but I’m encountering some challenges and need your help.
Specifically, I want to modify the state equation to include external explanatory variables , such as:

In this setup:
• is the state variable.
• is an explanatory variable (could be a vector or scalar).
• represents the influence of the explanatory variable on the state dynamics.

My Questions:
1. Does the bnlssm package support incorporating explanatory variables directly into the state equation?
2. If it does, are there any specific examples or documentation that demonstrate how to achieve this?
3. If not, is there a recommended workaround for including explanatory variables, such as extending the state vector or using another approach? state space model, state equation, bnlssm package MATLAB Answers — New Questions

​

Hello Everyone
My question is it is possible to simulate and perform communication between multiple UAV in lunar environment using MATLAB and SIMULINK. If yes, which toolbox we need to use.

Thank you in advance.Hello Everyone
My question is it is possible to simulate and perform communication between multiple UAV in lunar environment using MATLAB and SIMULINK. If yes, which toolbox we need to use.

Thank you in advance. Hello Everyone
My question is it is possible to simulate and perform communication between multiple UAV in lunar environment using MATLAB and SIMULINK. If yes, which toolbox we need to use.

Thank you in advance. uav, lunar, simulink MATLAB Answers — New Questions

​

Hello,

My program is giving the right solution for the problem, but I believe it is doing unecessary steps. For a problem with initial point at [4 6], my code using conjugate method is doing more steps than when I try to solve the same problem using the steepest descent method.

-> Main function:

function [x_opt,f_opt,k] = conjugate_gradient (fob,g_fob,x0,tol_grad);

c0 = feval(g_fob,x0); % evaluate gradient at initial point

k = 0;

if norm(c0) < tol_grad

x_opt = x0; % optimum point
f_opt = feval(fob,x_opt); % cost function value
else
d0= -c0; % search direction
alfa0 = equal_interval_line_search(x0,d0,fob,0.5,1e-6); %line search (step size)
x1= x0+ alfa0*d0;
c1 = feval(g_fob,x1);

while norm(c1) > tol_grad
beta = (norm(c1)/norm(c0))^2;
d1= -c1+beta*d0;
alfa1 = equal_interval_line_search(x1,d1,fob,0.5,1e-6);
x2= x1+alfa1*d1;
c0=c1;
c1= feval(g_fob,x2);
d0=d1;
x1=x2;
k=k+1;
end
x_opt = x1;
f_opt = feval(fob,x_opt);
end

Cost function:

function f = fob_8_58(x);

f = 8*x(1)^2 + 8*x(2)^2 – 80*((x(1)^2+x(2)^2-20*x(2)+100)^0.5)- 80*((x(1)^2+x(2)^2+20*x(2)+100)^0.5)-5*x(1)-5*x(2);

->Gradient fuction:

function g = grad_fob_8_58(x)

g(1) = 16*x(1) – 80*x(1)/((x(1)^2+x(2)^2-20*x(2)+100)^0.5)- 80*x(1)/((x(1)^2+x(2)^2+20*x(2)+100)^0.5)-5;

g(2) =16*x(2) – 80*(x(2)-10)/((x(1)^2+x(2)^2-20*x(2)+100)^0.5)- 80*(x(2)+10)/((x(1)^2+x(2)^2+20*x(2)+100)^0.5)-5;Hello,

My program is giving the right solution for the problem, but I believe it is doing unecessary steps. For a problem with initial point at [4 6], my code using conjugate method is doing more steps than when I try to solve the same problem using the steepest descent method.

-> Main function:

function [x_opt,f_opt,k] = conjugate_gradient (fob,g_fob,x0,tol_grad);

c0 = feval(g_fob,x0); % evaluate gradient at initial point

k = 0;

if norm(c0) < tol_grad

x_opt = x0; % optimum point
f_opt = feval(fob,x_opt); % cost function value
else
d0= -c0; % search direction
alfa0 = equal_interval_line_search(x0,d0,fob,0.5,1e-6); %line search (step size)
x1= x0+ alfa0*d0;
c1 = feval(g_fob,x1);

while norm(c1) > tol_grad
beta = (norm(c1)/norm(c0))^2;
d1= -c1+beta*d0;
alfa1 = equal_interval_line_search(x1,d1,fob,0.5,1e-6);
x2= x1+alfa1*d1;
c0=c1;
c1= feval(g_fob,x2);
d0=d1;
x1=x2;
k=k+1;
end
x_opt = x1;
f_opt = feval(fob,x_opt);
end

Cost function:

function f = fob_8_58(x);

f = 8*x(1)^2 + 8*x(2)^2 – 80*((x(1)^2+x(2)^2-20*x(2)+100)^0.5)- 80*((x(1)^2+x(2)^2+20*x(2)+100)^0.5)-5*x(1)-5*x(2);

->Gradient fuction:

function g = grad_fob_8_58(x)

g(1) = 16*x(1) – 80*x(1)/((x(1)^2+x(2)^2-20*x(2)+100)^0.5)- 80*x(1)/((x(1)^2+x(2)^2+20*x(2)+100)^0.5)-5;

g(2) =16*x(2) – 80*(x(2)-10)/((x(1)^2+x(2)^2-20*x(2)+100)^0.5)- 80*(x(2)+10)/((x(1)^2+x(2)^2+20*x(2)+100)^0.5)-5; Hello,

My program is giving the right solution for the problem, but I believe it is doing unecessary steps. For a problem with initial point at [4 6], my code using conjugate method is doing more steps than when I try to solve the same problem using the steepest descent method.

-> Main function:

function [x_opt,f_opt,k] = conjugate_gradient (fob,g_fob,x0,tol_grad);

c0 = feval(g_fob,x0); % evaluate gradient at initial point

k = 0;

if norm(c0) < tol_grad

x_opt = x0; % optimum point
f_opt = feval(fob,x_opt); % cost function value
else
d0= -c0; % search direction
alfa0 = equal_interval_line_search(x0,d0,fob,0.5,1e-6); %line search (step size)
x1= x0+ alfa0*d0;
c1 = feval(g_fob,x1);

while norm(c1) > tol_grad
beta = (norm(c1)/norm(c0))^2;
d1= -c1+beta*d0;
alfa1 = equal_interval_line_search(x1,d1,fob,0.5,1e-6);
x2= x1+alfa1*d1;
c0=c1;
c1= feval(g_fob,x2);
d0=d1;
x1=x2;
k=k+1;
end
x_opt = x1;
f_opt = feval(fob,x_opt);
end

Cost function:

function f = fob_8_58(x);

f = 8*x(1)^2 + 8*x(2)^2 – 80*((x(1)^2+x(2)^2-20*x(2)+100)^0.5)- 80*((x(1)^2+x(2)^2+20*x(2)+100)^0.5)-5*x(1)-5*x(2);

->Gradient fuction:

function g = grad_fob_8_58(x)

g(1) = 16*x(1) – 80*x(1)/((x(1)^2+x(2)^2-20*x(2)+100)^0.5)- 80*x(1)/((x(1)^2+x(2)^2+20*x(2)+100)^0.5)-5;

g(2) =16*x(2) – 80*(x(2)-10)/((x(1)^2+x(2)^2-20*x(2)+100)^0.5)- 80*(x(2)+10)/((x(1)^2+x(2)^2+20*x(2)+100)^0.5)-5; optimization, conjugate method, fletcher reeves MATLAB Answers — New Questions

​

I want to create a custom Simulink Test report that includes the summary and coverage tables at the end of each section as shown in the Test Manager results.

Could you advise me on how I can do this?I want to create a custom Simulink Test report that includes the summary and coverage tables at the end of each section as shown in the Test Manager results.

Could you advise me on how I can do this? I want to create a custom Simulink Test report that includes the summary and coverage tables at the end of each section as shown in the Test Manager results.

Could you advise me on how I can do this? results, coverage, report, test, manager, custom MATLAB Answers — New Questions

​

Hello , I want to simulate the following partial equation on simulink , but I dont know if what I already built is fine , I have some struggle with dc/dz ,because it gives me error when I try to build it , so I conected rate transition and discrete derivative ,but dont know it is ok . I am building a fixed bed reactor full loaded with carbon absorbed gold in which a cyanide flow is pumped into and absorbs the gold loading , depleting the carbon . Following the equations:

So i tried finite differences for dc/dz with forward difference for eactor entry , central along the reactor , and backward in the exit, and dc/dt and dq/dt use integrator blocks, I consider Co= 0 and q0=4320. The problem is that when I remove rate transition and discrete derivative in 4th reactor,gives error.
Being that said, is correct to represent dc/dz as following? :
Adjoint the simulink file down here and thanks in advance:
https://riveril123.quickconnect.to/d/s/11jhifsXc7WjjbgDgYlqicG8JX9cxHGm/1KbHfeBHUy1vF0hiTKBsPaD8Nff4HGwg-27UAduxX-QsHello , I want to simulate the following partial equation on simulink , but I dont know if what I already built is fine , I have some struggle with dc/dz ,because it gives me error when I try to build it , so I conected rate transition and discrete derivative ,but dont know it is ok . I am building a fixed bed reactor full loaded with carbon absorbed gold in which a cyanide flow is pumped into and absorbs the gold loading , depleting the carbon . Following the equations:

So i tried finite differences for dc/dz with forward difference for eactor entry , central along the reactor , and backward in the exit, and dc/dt and dq/dt use integrator blocks, I consider Co= 0 and q0=4320. The problem is that when I remove rate transition and discrete derivative in 4th reactor,gives error.
Being that said, is correct to represent dc/dz as following? :
Adjoint the simulink file down here and thanks in advance:
https://riveril123.quickconnect.to/d/s/11jhifsXc7WjjbgDgYlqicG8JX9cxHGm/1KbHfeBHUy1vF0hiTKBsPaD8Nff4HGwg-27UAduxX-Qs Hello , I want to simulate the following partial equation on simulink , but I dont know if what I already built is fine , I have some struggle with dc/dz ,because it gives me error when I try to build it , so I conected rate transition and discrete derivative ,but dont know it is ok . I am building a fixed bed reactor full loaded with carbon absorbed gold in which a cyanide flow is pumped into and absorbs the gold loading , depleting the carbon . Following the equations:

So i tried finite differences for dc/dz with forward difference for eactor entry , central along the reactor , and backward in the exit, and dc/dt and dq/dt use integrator blocks, I consider Co= 0 and q0=4320. The problem is that when I remove rate transition and discrete derivative in 4th reactor,gives error.
Being that said, is correct to represent dc/dz as following? :
Adjoint the simulink file down here and thanks in advance:
https://riveril123.quickconnect.to/d/s/11jhifsXc7WjjbgDgYlqicG8JX9cxHGm/1KbHfeBHUy1vF0hiTKBsPaD8Nff4HGwg-27UAduxX-Qs simulink, reactor, partial differential equation MATLAB Answers — New Questions

​

Hi all,

I am building a PWM generator and boost converter diagram. When i vary the input (Duty Cycle) to the PWM Generator, it should control my IGBT switch that is part of my boost converter. However, i tried varying my duty cycle and the output to my boost converter remained the same.

I would appreciate if someone can help me and explain what went wrong by taking a look at the schematic attached below.

Thank you in advance!

<</matlabcentral/answers/uploaded_files/46998/Capture.PNG>>Hi all,

I am building a PWM generator and boost converter diagram. When i vary the input (Duty Cycle) to the PWM Generator, it should control my IGBT switch that is part of my boost converter. However, i tried varying my duty cycle and the output to my boost converter remained the same.

I would appreciate if someone can help me and explain what went wrong by taking a look at the schematic attached below.

Thank you in advance!

<</matlabcentral/answers/uploaded_files/46998/Capture.PNG>> Hi all,

I am building a PWM generator and boost converter diagram. When i vary the input (Duty Cycle) to the PWM Generator, it should control my IGBT switch that is part of my boost converter. However, i tried varying my duty cycle and the output to my boost converter remained the same.

I would appreciate if someone can help me and explain what went wrong by taking a look at the schematic attached below.

Thank you in advance!

<</matlabcentral/answers/uploaded_files/46998/Capture.PNG>> pwm, simulink, boost converter, power_electronics_control, electric_motor_control, power_conversion_control MATLAB Answers — New Questions

​

I am running R2025a pre-release. What are the commands to switch to dark mode?I am running R2025a pre-release. What are the commands to switch to dark mode? I am running R2025a pre-release. What are the commands to switch to dark mode? dark mode MATLAB Answers — New Questions

​

Why am I prompted to enter admin credentials every time I run MATLAB on Windows?Why am I prompted to enter admin credentials every time I run MATLAB on Windows? Why am I prompted to enter admin credentials every time I run MATLAB on Windows?  MATLAB Answers — New Questions

​

I am utilizing the AUTOSAR Code Replacement Library (CRL) and have observed discrepancies between the simulation results and the Software-in-the-Loop (SIL) outcomes. What could be the root causes of these issues, and how can I implement effective workarounds?I am utilizing the AUTOSAR Code Replacement Library (CRL) and have observed discrepancies between the simulation results and the Software-in-the-Loop (SIL) outcomes. What could be the root causes of these issues, and how can I implement effective workarounds? I am utilizing the AUTOSAR Code Replacement Library (CRL) and have observed discrepancies between the simulation results and the Software-in-the-Loop (SIL) outcomes. What could be the root causes of these issues, and how can I implement effective workarounds?  MATLAB Answers — New Questions

​