Algorithmic Design in Virtual Reality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A very interesting and novel study that surely can contribute to the field. Congrats to the authors! The paper is well written, and organized. The research problem is clearly defined and implemented strategies are logical. My only concern is the literature review. The current version is fine and all required definitions are presented. But, there are several recent research papers in high-quality journals. I encourage the authors to cite publications with similar setups (indeed with different case studies). This will further help to indicate the novelty of the present paper. However, the rest of the paper is ready to be published in its current form. 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the feedback and insightful suggestions, which helped us improve the manuscript. To address the reviewer’s comment, we have added several references relating to recent journal articles on current applications of VR in architecture, and current uses of VR in the context of AD projects.

Reviewer 2 Report

In the proposed study, Virtual Reality and Algorithmic Design are adapted for the purposes of presenting the architectural projects to the clients and processing their feedback in real-time. The developed approach allows the application of the textual programming paradigm that widens the range of the changes that can be introduced into the project in comparison with the visual programming. The discussed problems and the proposed solutions from the manuscript are relevant for modern architects. 

1. However, I would like to point out the general insufficiency of the analysis of the developed approach. The study will benefit from the comparison with existing solutions in that area even in terms of the introduced quality metrics like time required to introduce the client revisions or by the inquiry results. Also, as stated in the discussion section, the sample is lacking, and the results are subjective. While that is understandable in accordance with the nature of the research, further study shall be aimed at the more objective validation of the introduced methods. 

2. A minor issue of the manuscript is the absence of the outlined article structure in the introduction section.

3. Finally, an analysis of the scope of the changes allowed to be introduced into the construction as the response for the client feedback can be pointed out in a more clear fashion. The majority of the alterations to the non-predefined parameters in the building plans, viewed in the "Time gains" sections tend to be cosmetic in their nature. It may be insightful to evaluate the more complex changes, similar to the considered introduction of the auditorium room.

This article and the introduced methodology provide a well-posed contribution to algorithmic design applications. I think that the article can be accepted for publication with minor revisions. 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the feedback and insightful suggestions. To address the reviewer’s comments, we have changed the following:

1. We have increased the literature review on current applications of VR in architecture, and current uses of VR in the context of AD projects. To specifically compare our methods to pier works from the state of the art, similar conditions would have to be replicated and we, unfortunately, have little time to conduct this review. Nevertheless, we agree with the critique. Hence, we have also added a statement in the conclusion addressing our intention to resolve this in the future.
2. We added a paragraph containing the paper structure in the introduction.
3. We further elaborated on the analysis of the changes in section 5.1, both the cosmetic and the more complex ones. The discussion was also augmented with two new figures illustrating examples of each.

We once more thank the reviewer for the time and effort spent in helping us improve the manuscript.