An Integrated UWB-IMU-Vision Framework for Autonomous Approaching and Landing of UAVs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The Reviewer would like to thank the authors first for their effort. However, there are few concerns regarding the following:

1. The paper has a lot of categories put together and it doesn't seem like any of the points are complete or showing the work. For example: the PID section is only made of the two equations that are not clearly defined.

2. The proposed work flow is unclear regarding the search phase by all means, or why does the drone would go back to a search phase after the visual information was found and landed.

3. It is really hard to understand the System Overview section (unclear).

4. Fig. 1. x_L, y_L, and z_L is either unclear or incorrect.

5. Proposed results are being compared to an optitrack which was never defined in the paper.

6. undefined abbreviations like IMU (inertial measurement unit)

7. The matrices looks to be a mixture of position, velocity and acceleration without considering any conversions or showing the variable vector.

8. The main matrix is 27x27 with a lot of redundancies (no reduction used)

9. Too many results sections that are unclear of what is it describing.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. Please see the attachment for the response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Throughout the text, please unify the ArUco, or ARUCO marker. Two terms are used in text: aircraft and drone. Please unify throughout the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable suggestion, please see the attachment for the response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The Reviewer would like to thank the authors for the effort done with addressing the first comments list. The paper has a huge improvement from the first time. However, there are still few concerns:

1. Using undefined abbreviations.

2. Fig. 7(a) scattering plot doesn't look to match the bar chart for example the region between 3000 and 3020 has a lot of gaps where 2980 looks more filled and they both have a vacant bar chart.

3. Extra explanation for figures and results needs to be included to make it more clear and remove any confusion.

4. What is the difference between Groundtruth, Optitrack, and Fractal ArUco?

5. Figures quality needs to be better as some are hard to visualize.

6. Size of figures needs to be consistent.

7. The reference list needs to be increased with a majority of up-to-date research publications (Mostly last 5 years). References were reduced from the first version??

8. The English of the paper needs a lot of improvement to help removing the confusion.

Thanks,

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments. As suggested by the reviewer, the manuscript has been carefully reviewed and edited. Please see the attachment for detail.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewer would like to thank the authors for the great effort put in the paper modifications and clarifying and addressing all the comments.

Showing the experimental work, adding more clear graphs, and adding more to the introduction really helped with the shape of the paper.

Minor English check can be done before finalizing the paper if needed.