A Powerful Approach in Visualization: Creating Photorealistic Landscapes with AI

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor and authors for manuscript with the title “A Powerful Approach in Visualization: Creating Photorealistic Landscapes with AI”, and number “land-3630255”. I think this manuscript is suitable for publishing in this journal after revision, and adding some important sections.

You can find my comments in following:

Abstract:

• You should write more about your results in abstract. (Numerical result). Abstract is not good.

Introduction:

• Within line 50-70 you should bring more references. That means you should mention references for your text and information.
• Please use more papers as reference. Recent years papers.

Materials and methods:

• I have an important suggestion regarding your manuscript. I believe it would greatly enhance the paper if you tested AI with an additional method. Specifically, you could create a map similar to Figure 6a, but instead of using a historical map, you would design one that reflects the current landscape. Then, ask the AI to generate a visualization based on this reference. I believe this addition could make the manuscript even more suitable for publication.

Author Response

Comment1: You should write more about your results in abstract. (Numerical result). Abstract is not good.

Response1: The process described in the paper, has no numerical outcomes. It is now stated in the Abstract. However, as it was suggested in this Review to apply the algorytm to a modern map, mention of this validity check is added to the end of Abstract.

Comment2: Within line 50-70 you should bring more references. That means you should mention references for your text and information. Please use more papers as reference. Recent years papers.

Response2: In this part of the Introduction, we added references to all used and mentioned software as well as their enhanced description. We've referred to all papers and application we've used for the work.

Comment3: I have an important suggestion regarding your manuscript. I believe it would greatly enhance the paper if you tested AI with an additional method. Specifically, you could create a map similar to Figure 6a, but instead of using a historical map, you would design one that reflects the current landscape. Then, ask the AI to generate a visualization based on this reference. I believe this addition could make the manuscript even more suitable for publication.

Response3: We are extremely grateful for this idea. We have applied this and provide as a new part in Discussion & Conclusion chapter, with a new image (Fig. 7), with its detailed discussion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a valuable and well-executed study that effectively demonstrates a powerful approach to landscape visualization using AI. The authors have developed a practical workflow and provide an insightful discussion of both the potential and the current limitations of these emerging technologies. However, I have some concerns as follows that the suthors need to address before the paper is granted publication:

1. There is a significant error in figure captioning. The caption "Figure 1. River Büsér in the Middle Ages..." appears on page 13 but clearly refers to the image that should be Figure 5 (as suggested by the surrounding text discussing adding decorative elements and referencing "Fig. 5." ). This needs careful correction throughout the manuscript if other figure references are displaced.
2. While the detailed historical context of the GHP (Section 2.1) is informative and justifies its selection as a case study, it is quite extensive for a methods-focused paper. Consider slightly condensing this section or ensuring every detail provided is directly relevant to the choices made in the AI visualization process discussed later. For instance, details about specific river length changes or the intricacies of 'fok' management, while interesting, might be summarized to keep the focus on the AI methodology.
3. The abstract and introduction mention "cost-effective generation". While implied by using readily available software (some with free tiers or affordable subscriptions), a brief comment in the discussion comparing this to traditional costs (e.g., hiring a professional illustrator or animator) could strengthen this claim
4.  Table 1 ("Recommended and discouraged terms and methods in prompts"), the entry "ask too small objects" under "Discouraged terms and methods" is a bit informal. Consider rephrasing to something like "Requesting overly small or indistinct distant objects" or "Specifying minute details from broad perspectives."
5. The paper needs through English editing and polishing. 

Author Response

Comments1: There is a significant error in figure captioning. The caption "Figure 1. River Büsér in the Middle Ages..." appears on page 13 but clearly refers to the image that should be Figure 5 (as suggested by the surrounding text discussing adding decorative elements and referencing "Fig. 5." ). This needs careful correction throughout the manuscript if other figure references are displaced.

Response1: Thanks for this remark, we corrected this and made a final check on similar error possibilies.

Comments2: While the detailed historical context of the GHP (Section 2.1) is informative and justifies its selection as a case study, it is quite extensive for a methods-focused paper. Consider slightly condensing this section or ensuring every detail provided is directly relevant to the choices made in the AI visualization process discussed later. For instance, details about specific river length changes or the intricacies of 'fok' management, while interesting, might be summarized to keep the focus on the AI methodology.

Response2: Thanks for this remark. We've shortened the GHP description part by deleting the last, somewhat redundant long paragraph and replace by just a sentence to provide direct connection to the AI process description.

Comments3: The abstract and introduction mention "cost-effective generation". While implied by using readily available software (some with free tiers or affordable subscriptions), a brief comment in the discussion comparing this to traditional costs (e.g., hiring a professional illustrator or animator) could strengthen this claim

Response3: A new sentence is added to the (somewhat restructured) Introduction as: "Cost-effectiveness in this context means achieving the outlined workflow at a tiny fraction (about one hundredth) of the traditional cost as hiring a professional illustrators or animators."

Comments4: Table 1 ("Recommended and discouraged terms and methods in prompts"), the entry "ask too small objects" under "Discouraged terms and methods" is a bit informal. Consider rephrasing to something like "Requesting overly small or indistinct distant objects" or "Specifying minute details from broad perspectives."

Response4: Thanks for the suggestion, we've applied the first variant.

Comments5: The paper needs through English editing and polishing. 

Response5: The text was linguistically reviewed and, while preserving its content, was significantly revised as a result. The main goal here was to enhance a simpler, more compact and concise style of writing, to break up long paragraphs, and to apply bullet points wherever possible, in order to improve readability.