Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and Photogrammetric Technic for 3D Tsunamis Safety Modeling in Cilacap, Indonesia
and Agus Men Riyanto 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors claim they use 3ds max models, but how they really applied is not covered in the article (a superficial description only).
No details on the simulation are given. No particular algorithms and their parameters are presented (incl. ones for automated photogrammetry, UAV maneuvering and other systems elements).
The conditions of Cilacap case study are not presented in an enough manner. The used datasets are presented as coordinates only. Not enough technical details (incl. UAV parameters, etc.).
The main contribution (lines 269-271) is formulated a bit confusing.
Why the used modeling should be really easy understood by ordinary people (as it is stated in the text) is not properly substantiated. Possibly for ordinary people the most important would be real recommendation how to behave in such emergencies, and such recommendations could be a result of the modeling? (it'd be more clarified)
The article should be subjected to minor language revision (incl. lines 38, 117, etc.). DEM abbreviation is not exposed when it is used first time.
Author Response
I added a reviewer’ comment reply in the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is interesting and faces the use of remotely piloted aircraft systems to have better models for making more accurate simulations.
In my opinion I agree with the use of commercial drones that represent a good compromise between cost and quality of the images taken; this is because it makes the method replicable and usable by anyone interested.
Some small observations follow.
78 method produces a model that is real-time,
A small clarification. Although the concept of real time may have different time limits, perhaps it would be better to mention the representation of the current situation. The modeling process, however, requires image extraction and a lot of computation time so the term real time could be confusing for some less experienced readers of photogrammetric procedures.
207 2.4. UAV Process Drone Photogrammetry
I would be interesting add some information about the flight and image capture: number of flights, time of each flight, speed, gimbal orientation, images overlap, any critical issues for drones flying over a built-up area (if any), observations, etc.
215 2.5. Orthomosaic Process
It would be interesting to have information on the accuracy of the reconstructed model, to know how much accuracy is important for the simulation that follows and uses this data.
Were there any problems in the reconstruction of areas with high density and complexity of buildings? If important, how were they dealt with?
Author Response
I added a reviewer’ comment reply in the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have provided detailed answers as well as corrections to my comment. I mean after correcting all other reviewers comments the article could be publiched.
