Quadrotor Cascade Control System Design Based on Linear Active Disturbance Rejection Control
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript is very nicely presented, and well written. It clearly tells the story of the research work undertaken. The literature review provides a current perspective of the research area. There is a sensible balance of theory, maths and results, with the results displayed in an appropriate form. The conclusions drawn align with the previous presented material.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments and I wish you good health and success in your work.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors in this paper titled “cascade Control System Design Based on Linear Active Disturbance Rejection Control (SMC&A-LADRC)” organized sound structure manner. However, the following comments are to be addressed by the authors
- Discuss the tunning method adopted in LADRC
- Discuss the robustness of the proposed model in dynamic conditions
- Validate the results of the proposed model using a hardware simulator
Kindly check the grammar
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear author(s),
I appreciate your ideas. Thank you for your contributions.
However, there are many problems in your paper.
1. The template of the paper, for example, words, the variables, the figures, and so on, seem to be not a ready submission of a form.
2. The quadrotor is very commonly objective research hence you need to experiment to enhance your study.
3. Please compare your proposed method with another method that highlights your work.
4. Please show all of the results and design the evaluation for each method.
I don't see the elaboration in your article. Your paper's language needs to major revised before resubmitting.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
1. The paper needs to be checked carefully for grammatical mistakes.
2. A review table should be added to clarify the research gap and a literature review section should be included in the manuscript to provide context for your work. Your contribution to the field is not clearly stated in the manuscript.
3. The quality of the figures in the manuscript needs to be improved to meet the standards of the journal. Consider providing clearer and higher quality figures.
1. The paper needs to be checked carefully for grammatical mistakes.
2. A review table should be added to clarify the research gap and a literature review section should be included in the manuscript to provide context for your work. Your contribution to the field is not clearly stated in the manuscript.
3. The quality of the figures in the manuscript needs to be improved to meet the standards of the journal. Consider providing clearer and higher quality figures.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear Authors
Thank you for your research. Please try change this paper with this comments:
- There is a problem with symbols everywhere please check how to change it, because it is not readable (example line 133 to 145)- please add more detailed information under the figures,
e.g. in figure 4 what trajectory? in figure 5 you need to write
- inline 361 in eg (39) why is in left side { and I ??it is
- line 421 describe ideal is not correct please thing about "is better" most general because ideal is not clear.
Through simulation tests, it is proved that the control strategy proposed in this paper is effective and ideal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear author(s),
Thank you for your effort to revise the manuscripts. However, I have some points as follows:
1. This is not enough because I suggest you should carefully check the template or sample paper. Again, I think your paper is not ready for submission.
2. In point 4 - round 1, you do not understand my suggestion. Your reply is not the evaluation methods of the simulation results.
3. As I mentioned in Round 1, I can not accept this paper if your research can not do experiments. I think you can understand the reasons. Thank you!
Please, check carefully the language!
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: This is not enough because I suggest you should carefully check the template or sample paper. Again, I think your paper is not ready for submission.
Response 1: Thank you for your comments. I am very sorry for our oversight, we have downloaded the latest template or sample paper from the official website and revised it carefully, hope it can meet your requirements, thanks.
Point 2: In point 4 - round 1, you do not understand my suggestion. Your reply is not the evaluation methods of the simulation results.
Response 2: Thank you for your comments. We are very sorry for not understanding your suggestion correctly.
(1) In the original manuscript, we gave the evaluation of the three simulations at the end of Chapter 4. We have modified the placement of the simulation evaluations in the new manuscript. We placed the evaluation of simulation case 1 on page 11, line 6, the evaluation of simulation case 2 on page 13, line 6, and the evaluation of simulation case 3 on page 15, line 13 of the article.
(2) We have added a summary of the comparative evaluation of the three simulations on page 15, line 30 of the article.
Modifications in the manuscript:
Combining all the above simulation cases, simulation case 1 is to verify whether the SMC&A-LADRC control strategy proposed in this paper has good trajectory tracking performance, and simulation cases 2 and 3 are designed with wind disturbance and step disturbance to verify whether the SMC&A-LADRC control strategy has good robustness. Integrating the above estimated tracking diagram and simulation evaluation, we verify the rationality and effectiveness of the SMC&A-LADRC control strategy proposed in this paper, and it has good control performance and strong anti-disturbance capability with stronger robustness when subjected to internal disturbance and external disturbance of the quadrotor, which can make the quadrotor UAV work with the optimal path for flight and achieve the expected control effect.
Modified places we marked in the article in green, hope it can meet your requirements, thank you.
Point 3: As I mentioned in Round 1, I can not accept this paper if your research can not do experiments. I think you can understand the reasons. Thank you!
Response 3: Thank you for your comments. I am very sorry that we could not perform the experiments, as our existing conditions do not allow us to do the experiments, which include the lack of experimental equipment and standard test site, so we can only do theoretical analysis through simulation, I hope you can understand our difficulties. Again, we are very sorry for our inability to conduct experiments, and we have taken this part as a limitation of this paper and will try to solve it in our next work. Regardless of the outcome, we sincerely thank you for your comments and wish you good health and success in your work, thank you.
Point 4: Please, check carefully the language!
Response 4: Thank you for your comments. I am very sorry for our carelessness. We read through the paper and fixed some grammatical errors and hope to meet your requirements.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
