Fast Path Planning of Autonomous Vehicles in 3D Environments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The methodologically oriented manuscript is dedicated to the presentation of a new 3D path planning algorithm. While the algorithm appears to be sound and could be a good contribution to the ongoing developments, there are a few other aspects requiring clarification in a revised version of the manuscript:

• A crucial point is the lack of a discussion. The reader is not provided a section which connects the actual outcome of the study with the international state-of-the-art. In how far does your applied studies (development of algorithm) expand, back up, contradict etc. other research contributions? Please add a thorough discussion section.

 

• I understand that 3D path planning is a topic having its focus on the motion of vehicles in 3D. However, you manuscript begins too much ‘in medias res‘ and it lacks a broader picture of ongoing developments in 3D. It would be interesting for the readership to read an opening paragraph in your introduction dealing with widely discussed research topics of 3D, also considering the fields of UAV data analysis (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2016.1176605) and visualization with XR technologies (e.g. Virtual Reality: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42489-020-00069-6 & Augmented Reality: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2015.03.005).

 

• Your literature body on 3D path planning (background section) could be extended using those studies: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7053093 & https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jcse/2016/7426913/

Author Response

The response to reviewers is attached. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This topic is interesting. Although well written, the subject itself is difficult to understand. I have just few concerns:

• In the introduction section, please state better what is the aim of this paper.
• Mayba  a diagram flow can help in better understand the paper
• The effectiveness of thier path plan algorithm using experiments with real 3D robots is not well verify. Is this a limitation of the paper? or can it be improved?

Author Response

The response to reviewer 2 is attached. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author provided a revised manuscript version which considers the points mentioned in the first round of the review. The argumentation in the response letter why changes were made is short, but sound. Against this background, I can give a recommendation for publication.