Improved Image Synthesis with Attention Mechanism for Virtual Scenes via UAV Imagery
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper entitled "Improved Image Synthesis with Attention Mechanism for Virtual Scenes via UAV Imagery" presents an image synthesis scheme using UAV images based on deep learning, showing promising performance. Overall paper is well organized and written, and here are some comments to improve the manuscript.
Major aspects:
(1) L110-111. "attention also has some of the limitations described above", "In view of the above problems, the attention mechanism YLG is added". The description is a little unclear and contradictory, for it seems that the method of solving the limitations of attention is adding an attention mechanism.
(2) L156. "it also lacks ... activated." is a little difficult to comprehend and it's better to rearrange it.
(3) L288. "it is easy to ...". It's not very proper to use the word "easy" here, please modify the expression.
(4) In part "(1)" of Section 2.4.4, there should be some explanations about the reason for dividing images in the datasets into two scenes other than using the three datasets directly.
(5) In part "(2)" of Section 2.4.4, there should be some explanations about the reason for not comparing the performance of SYGAN with that of CRN, SIMS, pix2pixHD, and GauGAN.
(6) Figure 12 should be improved, because it's not explicit to show some descriptions in the context such as "epoch = 110", "140 times", "21 minutes", and "19 minutes".
(7) The "Conclusions" part needs improvement. It can be more comprehensive.
Minor aspects (typos, etc):
(1) L42. "it is ..." should be "and it is ..." or "which is ..."
(2) L135. "as" should be removed.
(3) L148. "sample" should be "samples".
(4) L149. "The generated image xf or the real image xt . " is reduplicated and should be removed.
(5) L154. There should be a period "." before "It uses ...".
(6) L161. "its input is ..." should be "and its input is ..." or "whose is a ..."
(7) L193. "Et al" should be rectified.
(8) L214. "The" should not be capitalized.
(9) L231. There should be a reference after "Rewon Child et al".
(10) L278. "it is ..." should be "and it is ..." or "which is ..."
(11) In Equations 4 and 8, Some symbols are not fully shown.
(12) L425. "Landscape scene"?
(13) There should also be "%" for PA and MIoU in Tables 5, 6, and 7.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Novelty is not apparent, authors should write difference from literature papers.
Authors should explain novelty parts item by item clearly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors:
Thanks for inviting me to review drones-2236815 Titled: " Improved Image Synthesis with Attention Mechanism for Virtual Scenes via UAV Imagery" I already attached the reviewed (pdf) version of the MS with all my comments, questions and suggestions.
Page No. 1: Lines 14,15,16,18,20,21,22,34,41– Are these all abbreviations? If yes then it is better to define their full forms before using it as such
Page No. 1: Lines 43 – as highlighted in yellow, the way you cite another researchers work is not appropriate. You have to change the sentence, work on grammar and English related corrections. The authors must read the "Instructions for Authors" available at https://www.mdpi.com/journal/drones/instructions
Page No. 2: Lines 45,51 – as highlighted in yellow, the way you cite another researchers work is not appropriate. You have to change the sentence, work on grammar and English related corrections. The authors must read the "Instructions for Authors" available at https://www.mdpi.com/journal/drones/instructions
Page No. 2: Line 85 – increasing the resolution of image might help its readability.
Page No. 6: Line 93 – as highlighted in yellow, the way you cite another researchers work is not appropriate. You have to change the sentence, work on grammar and English related corrections. The authors must read the "Instructions for Authors" available at https://www.mdpi.com/journal/drones/instructions
Page No. 7: Line 231 – as highlighted in yellow, the way you cite another researchers work is not appropriate. You have to change the sentence, work on grammar and English related corrections. The authors must read the "Instructions for Authors" available at https://www.mdpi.com/journal/drones/instructions
Page No. 14: Line 447–the format used for list of references looks good. However, most of the articles seem to be from conferences and not from journals. Also, at some places where it is highlighted in yellow, just check if needs to be reformatted. The authors can read the "Instructions for Authors" available at https://www.mdpi.com/journal/hydrology/instructions
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
