I'm an Automotive Simulation Engineer (mostly energy/performance simulation on vehicle level).
I'm trying to export a simplified battery model from AMESIM to a Realtime target (Dspace). I use the following workflow (from AMESIM realtime doku):
I can compile the model with Simulink coder without error but when importing the compiled files in Control Desk I get the following error:
Based on this error I tried to get AMESIM to create the .map file (acc. to workflow this file should be created to specify watch parameters) but I can't get it to work.
I'm honestly not sure if this error occurs because I'm missing something in AMESIM or if I'm making a mistake in Matlab/Simulink...
Have any of you had a similar problem or can you point me in the right direction how i can resolve this error?
Amesim Simcenter V17
MATLAB Version 9.1 (R2016b)
Simulink Version 8.8 (R2016b)
Simulink Coder Version 8.11 (R2016b)
Control Desk 6.2
Thanks in advance
It looks like the RT files have not been generated properly and are missing a lookup table used by the Amesim model.
During the step to generate files for real time, you should have a summary about external dependencies.
Something like this:
Do you see any message refering to the e2_bat_etc05.map file?
If it says NOT_FOUND like in the snapshot above and the file is actually used by the simulation, it may explain the error message you get when trying to run it in Control Desk.
I see some NOT FOUND Messages but they are all about parameters (not maps/datafiles) not used in the submodel (e.g. "NOT_FOUND 3.22+1.5e-3*soc+9e-6*sinh((soc-55)/4.7) in ESSBATPA01-1").
I tried a real simple system as well:
file.data is available!
but still no ".map" file --> is this a file usually created by AMESIM or is it created in Simulink?
The workflow isn't really specific in this regard.
I thought this map file was a parameter of the model.
You can safely ignore the NOT_FOUND when you see numerical values or expressions.
Does the simple model create the same issue when running it in Control Desk?
I have yet to try the rest of the Workflow with the simplified model.
I hope I am able to test it this week, I will report if anything changes.
Thanks for your help so far.