A Comparative Study for Control of Quadrotor UAVs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. authors need to modify the abstract to highlight the essential finding

2. Format is appropriate as per the template

3. In the result section, more explanation required with respect to each diagram. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

a response letter to the reviewers has been written. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

a response letter to the reviewers has been written. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Novelity in using different techniques is not noteworthy. However, few other observations are mentioned below.

Equations and mathematical terms to display in math-mode.

In the graphs, time durations should be reduced to show transient portion better visible.

Graphs are to be clearly visible in terms of the texts on these.

Controllers’ command, signals’ norm, etc. to be written as command of the controller or norm of the signal or signal norm, etc.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

a response letter to the reviewers has been written. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper investigated the 3D trajectory control of a quadrotor with different methods. Although this paper is a collection of multiple research methods, with no obvious innovations, it makes a scientific sound in the area of quadrotor control. And my comments are out below.

1. The amount of MPC (Model Predictive Control) computation is not mentioned, which may result in no optimization input being computed in one sampling period Tz.

2. In the conclusion part, a table should be added to address the advantages and disadvantages of methods used in this paper to give some necessary guidance to future study.

3. Some necessary studies related to the SMC are missing. Please refer to ‘10.1016/j.ast.2022.107815’, ‘10.1016/j.ast.2019.05.063’.

Overall, it is a good work, and my recommendation is ‘minor revised’.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

a response letter to the reviewers has been written. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Revised as per suggestions.