Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

allow arrays of step, impulse responses for LTI systems #512

Closed
murrayrm opened this issue Jan 17, 2021 · 2 comments · Fixed by #514
Closed

allow arrays of step, impulse responses for LTI systems #512

murrayrm opened this issue Jan 17, 2021 · 2 comments · Fixed by #514
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@murrayrm
Copy link
Member

The current implementation of step and impulse responses for MIMO systems requires the specification of an input channel, so that you always get a SIMO (or SISO) time response. As pointed out in #453, this is not symmetric with the frequency responses, where you can index the input and output channels. There is no reason this couldn't be done consistently for step and impulse responses by just iterating over the set of all input channels. This would help make time and frequency responses more consistent.

Note that one inconsistency will remain: when you compute a forced response, you have to specify the particular input. So in that case you can't index the input channel, only the output channel.

@sawyerbfuller
Copy link
Contributor

sawyerbfuller commented Jan 18, 2021 via email

@murrayrm murrayrm self-assigned this Jan 18, 2021
@murrayrm
Copy link
Member Author

I have coded up this change, including input=None handling (separate row for each input). Just waiting on merge of #511 before sending a PR.

This change breaks some of the unit test code that was implicitly assuming that input=None would select the first input. But changes are minor and everything is pretty much backward compatible. I suggest we implement this change into 0.9.0, though, since it may require modification of user code.

@murrayrm murrayrm added this to the 0.9.0 milestone Jan 18, 2021
@murrayrm murrayrm linked a pull request Jan 19, 2021 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants