symbolic VS casadi

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/62154145/error-python-ipc-popen2-undefined-near-line-62-column-15-when-running-octave and https://github.com/cbm755/octsympy/issues/424 seems really similar to the problem you're having.

I'm experiencing issues with the octave symbolic package very similar to those found here. This issue seems to have been fixed and merged here.

I used this link (https://github.com/cbm755/octsympy/releases) to download the bundle package. After downloading, I put them in the same directory and typed "pkg install symbolic-win-py-bundle-2.9.0.tar.gz" in the command prompt in octave as the directions said and this error message came up:

Interface for several solvers and integrators.

Howdy! Collocation methods can be... tricky. For NMPC control of vehicles, success has been had using direct multiple shooting. Also easier to implement and more intuitive. In fact, this example from the GH is pretty instructive: https://github.com/casadi/casadi/blob/master/docs/examples/python/race_car.py

JuMP.jl (Julia) or casADi (Python) are good choices.

Python is not mature in this area. If you ask Google what Simulink for Python is, you get responses that point to dead libraries that were never feature complete and slow. The absolute closest is CASADI which is nice for some things but doesn't even have a true causal modeling interface and is mostly abandoned by the developers (they put a patch in every now and then, but just look at the commit graph), and it's slow compared to the Julia tools, so much so that PyBAMM is interfacing with ModelingToolkit.jl in Julia for a performance boost. Python is not the place to be for causal/acausal modeling or controls. Anyone who is saying "Python is mature" here is saying it in the abstract and not in the context of your actual question. Yes, Python has web development frameworks. No it does not have good libraries for tons of areas (control, acausal modeling, pharmacometrics, etc.).