Maritime Working Group Meeting Jan 2024: Technical working meeting (APAC-friendly time)

Note that this meeting is at a Asia-Pacific-friendly time, by community request. This does sacrifice attendees in Europe time zones. We might try doing this once a quarter if there’s enough attendance.

When: 2024-01-31T00:00:00Z2024-01-31T01:00:00Z
Where: Virtual at
Calendar event: Google Calendar
Agenda: ROS Maritime Working Group meeting agenda - Google Docs

We’ll kick off the new year with a technical working meeting to build the momentum for the year. Recall that we are doing technical meetings at least once a quarter, based on community feedback. The previous one was in November. These meetings are where we talk about collaborative tickets on the GitHub Project Board, as well as administrative Working Group matters, e.g. ideas you have for the WG’s present and future goals, structure, etc.

A few highlights from the Agenda (linked below):

  • New maritime tutorials have been merged and are live on Gazebo website.
  • Added mass in the physics engine vs. in the hydrodynamics plugin (Arjo to correct if I mischaracterized this)
  • DAVE underwater simulator migration - DAVE maintainers hope to discuss what version of ROS 2 and new Gazebo to target migration (currently ROS 1 Noetic and Gazebo 11). This will be a voluntary community effort. We have an outline of suggested approach in this issue. Please bring questions and discussion points, or comment on the GitHub ticket directly. If you’re interested in contributing time to the migration, we can find something for you – commitment could range from hours, days, weeks, to months.
  • There has been some momentum in tickets in the DAVE repo in the Done column of the Project Board.

If you have community updates / software releases / progress on tickets, always feel free to add to the Agenda linked below. If you want to see other things discussed in this meeting, feel free to comment in reply.

General feedback welcome as always. Message me on Discourse or use Matrix chat group for group visibility.

Quick links to resources for the WG:
GitHub Project Board
GitHub community
Matrix chat
Google Group (only used to send meeting calendar invites)

Hi, I won’t be able to attend this unfortunately because I’m in the GMT timezone.

Will the meeting be recorded?

The DAVE migration upstream into Gazebo is very interesting, specifically for sonar. It’s the last major missing piece for us, now that the other bits have been migrated. It’s possible me and my team can dedicate some time later this year, if no one’s else has done it by then. It would be great to discuss.


Heads up we’ll also be gauging community interest in a potential marine REP that Evan Palmer will talk about in the meeting agenda.

Glad you find interest in sonar simulation that I’ve put together! Ask me if you have any questions about it!

1 Like

Thank you, I appreciate all of your excellent contributions! We will definitely be in touch in the future.

Hi! I actually was planning to join this meeting but I seem to have missed it looking at the notes. I’ve put it in my agenda at 1 pm central European time but totally missed that it was 1 am… at night. My bad! You did put a warning there though so this is entirely on me :slight_smile: I’ll join a next time!

Meeting recording, transcript, chat log.

Thanks everyone for attending! Turned out we had a full agenda that’s developed since the original announcement and very active discussions. See notes in Agenda.

We now also post recordings (same as above) to Vimeo thanks to @Katherine_Scott


I couldn’t make it to this meeting, but just watched the recording and I think people are doing a lot of cool stuff. In particular the digital twin system @woensug-choi proposed was interesting.

Since this is to integrate with Dave, it will only be for underwater vehicles, correct? As a disclaimer, I have zero experience in underwater vehicle simulation. However, I think things would get significantly more complex if this proposed system included wave and surface vehicle simulation (visual vs physical state, passing sea state data etc…).

If this is limited to underwater environments, would the plan then be to only use Cesium to obtain ocean floor models? On a separate note, It might be useful to narrow down which part of the system is doing what and what data needs to be shared between them, more specifically.

Thanks for mentioning Cesium BTW. It’s my first time hearing about it and I think I’ll try it out for the surface vessel simulator I’m building (in Unity).

Finally, are you set on Nvidia/omniverse? I’m assuming Gazebo is a hard constraint it’s what dave is built on currently.

Just throwing stuff out there!

No worries Kim! Thanks for the insight about the aerial REP! I’ve yet to read it in detail. Evan and I will be gauging marine community interest in a REP shortly.

Hi Magnus, recording has been posted above. Happy to support migration to new Gazebo if you have questions about Gazebo best practices etc.

@edvart I am also brainstorming the subject! Bringing Cesium is for pipelining the GIS dataset which I expect to be abundant in sometime future (maybe not).

I don’t think Dave is restricted to underwater. It’s only concentrated to it.

I’ve seen some works of bridging omniverse and ros. and omniverse support cesium vice versa. I am thinking of constructing a parallel simulation that the gazebo and all the robotics community is doing is simulation the sensors and physics and omniverse + cesium (while omniverse may have some physics engines) will be a visualizer.

I’ve done ros-gazebo ↔ fledermaus before. Using fledermaus as visualizer. But replacing it to omniverse+cesium. Maybe I don’t need omniverse but I am sure omniverse will try to connect itself to ROS.

Anyway! Happy to collaborate!