A Simulation and Verification Platform for Avionics Systems Based on Future Airborne Capability Environment Architecture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is quite interesting.

I have formal comments as follow.

- There should not be abbreviation in the title of the article.

- Figure 6 - I miss "data update events" in the second block of the image.

- Fig 11, 12, 13 - I miss units in the graphs axes.

- Table 1., 2. - Titles of the tables should start by capitals.

I recommend to describe tables and graphs in more detail. There are the key part of the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents a (FACE)-based simulation and verification platform of avionics systems in order to provide an extensible development template and model scheduling strategy for components, supporting the scheduling operation of periodic and non-periodic tasks. The results sustain the cause of using multi-task scheduling optimization, airborne network management, reliability enhancement, and other advanced technologies, that will vigorously improve the level of avionics technology.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Ref: applsci-2024525

Title: A FACE-based Simulation and Verification Platform for Avionics Systems

The Authors have attempted good work. However, there are few comments that must be addressed in their revised manuscript.

·         In Abstract, line (9-13),

“Second, the proposed platform is composed of scheduling, communication, and configuration management, accomplishes the registration and scheduling management of component models, provides standard and unified interfaces for data communication and supports real-time interaction with data, and enables automatically adds or changes to the operational information and generates the corresponding XML configuration files.”

-----Seems to be lengthy, the authors are advised to split-up this sentence.

·         Page 3, Line 131, A grammatical error is found

·        Page 4, In Figure 1. FACE architecture, the letters must be legible

·        Page 6, In Figure 3. “Class diagram of component models. The diagram needs to be checked for correctness

·        Page 7, In Figure 5. Board scheduling framework. Letters must be written without any hindrance

·         In Page 11, section 4.2. Performance test, the authors are expected to mentioned where and when these test are conducted. How do they justify with these sample input/output with the real time many occasions.

·         In page 12,13…. Table 1 and Table 2, the format of caption must be as per the Journal Guidelines. In Table 1and 2, from “stdev” for the considered set of solutions, what is the significance?

·         The inference must be stated clearly.

·         In conclusion the authors mentioned that “Finally, the good feasibility of the simulation and verification platform is obtained through the test results.”

What is the basis for this statement from their results……has to be clearly stated with real time evidence?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Journal: Applied Sciences (ISSN 2076-3417)

Manuscript ID: applsci-2024525

Type: Article

Title: A FACE-based Simulation and Verification Platform for Avionics Systems.

Authors: Jinchao Chen * , Chenglie Du , Xiaoyan Du , Mei Yang , Wenquan Yu.

a)           Introduction: add more recent refs from the literature survey? And write the objective of the present work carefully.

b)          Add more recent references

c)           What is the main question addressed by the research?

d)          Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?

e)           What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

f)            What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?

g)           Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?

h)          Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf