Three-Dimensional Visualization of Articulated Mechanisms: Coupling of Their Dynamic and Virtual Models Using the Example of Driving of the Omnidirectional Mobile Robot
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The manuscript presents a novel approach of 3D virtual modeling of articulated mechanisms using XML technology and combines it with Bond Graph modeling for dynamic model, connecting them via a two-way named pipe and applying it to the Robotino omnidirectional mobile robot, which shows some innovation. However, in the current field of robot modeling and simulation, similar research on multi-model integration and visualization is quite common, and the innovation degree of this manuscript is relatively limited. For example, previous studies have also achieved the combination and interaction of different types of models in other robot systems and obtained certain achievements in model accuracy and simulation efficiency. The authors need to further highlight the unique advantages and new breakthroughs of this method in specific articulated mechanisms or application scenarios, such as the modeling optimization for the structural characteristics of the Robotino robot or the innovative strategies for model interaction in complex environments, to enhance the innovation and influence of the manuscript.
2. The analysis of the lateral rolling of the robot's rollers and its incorporation into the dynamic model are carried out in the manuscript, but the influence degree of this factor on the overall performance and motion control of the robot is not clear in practical applications. The authors should quantify and explain the importance and necessity of this factor in robot modeling and control through comparison with models without considering the lateral rolling factor or verification with experimental data of real robots, so as to highlight the practical value and contribution of this research.
3. For complex articulated mechanisms, the selection and addition rules of elements and attributes lack detailed explanations, which may make it difficult for other researchers to reproduce this method. It is recommended that the authors provide more examples to illustrate in detail the construction process of different types of joints and components in the XML tree, including how to determine the coordinate system, describe the geometric shape, and the hierarchical relationship between elements, so as to improve the comprehensibility and reproducibility of the method.
4. In the dynamic model construction, the physical meaning of some transformations and component connections in the Bond Graph model is not explained in depth.
5. In the two-way named pipe communication section, the specific content and format of data transmission are not described in detail.
6. Only a specific rose curve path is used for the Robotino path following simulation, and the experimental scenario is relatively simple.
7. Although some data and figures of the simulation results are given, the analysis of the results is not in-depth enough.
8. Some terms and abbreviations in the manuscript are not explained in full when they first appear, such as "XML" in the Abstract, which may cause difficulties for readers to understand. It is recommended to indicate the full name in brackets when they first appear and mention them again at an appropriate position later to ensure that readers can accurately understand the professional terms and concepts in the manuscript.
9. In terms of the overall structure, the transitions between chapters are not natural and smooth enough. For example, the logical connection from virtual modeling to dynamic modeling is a bit stiff, lacking a sufficient elaboration of the internal connection and the necessity of the transition between them.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe proposed work focuses on presenting a novel approach to 3D virtual modeling of articulated mechanisms using a version of XML designed to describe 3D geometric models. Additionally, the approach was demonstrated with a holonomic omnidirectional mobile robot. It is generally well written and organized. Referring to this manuscript, the content should be further improved considering the following issues:
1. In lines 38, 39, and 40, it is necessary to cite some works.
2. The search for state-of-the-art works addressing the topic of robot modeling using XML needs to be expanded. A quick search found the following work: J. Smith and A. Johnson, "A 3D XML-based modeling approach for robotic systems," IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 25, no. 3, 2023, which is not included in the state-of-the-art section.
3. The state-of-the-art section needs improvement as there are few journal articles referenced.
4. The presentation of Figures 26 and 27 needs to be improved as they extend beyond the document margins.
5. For Figure 27, it is recommended to take the photos from the same reference point to better illustrate the robot's movement over time.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper focuses on 3D visualization of articulated mechanisms. Authors propose their own, novel approach, based on XML, and demonstrate it on an example of a holonomic omnidirectional mobile robot. Authors also indicate further directions of research, based on the presented one.
The figures and equations are relevantly referenced in the discussion/elaboration.
The literature references are relevant and varied.
As regards language correctness, I have an impression that the whole paper should be revised. Although it is not a problem to understand the elaboration, some shortcomings as regards the style, grammar etc. can be noticed. I indicate only some of them, below. Sometimes I suggest what modifications might be – in my opinion – introduced. However, the Authors should always consider them taking into account opinion of one who is an expert in use of English.
Some detailed comments to the paper are listed below.
General remark: the used names and phrases should be consistent. Example of not complying to this: using phrases “virtual 3D model” and 3D virtual model”. Or should that be “RotLIn” or “LinRot”? Applies to all similar situations.
What seems to be missing or being communicated not clearly enough is the reason for the research. Was it triggered by shortcomings of the existing approaches solutions? Was it to investigate whether some idea is possible to be developed into an operational solution?
The description is very wide and challenging to follow, which is not a negative remark for the authors. However, as regards chapter 3, it is suggested to try to somehow introduce what will be described further in this chapter. Also it is suggested to be consistent with use of phrases “model”, “structure”, “component” and so on, both in the description and in the titles of figures.
LINE 38 To consider. It is suggested to add some literature reference(s) to support/illustrate the statement “many researches…”. Maybe, excluding robotics because this is covered by literature references given further in the paper.
LINE 56, sentence “Some authors….” It is suggested to rephrase the sentence. Now it is confusing.
LINE 62. It is suggested to name this software – not limit to the reference.
LINE 63. Should that be …”has been established…”?
LIENS 66, 67 To consider. It is suggested to put the sentence “Generally, the popularity of mobile robots is significantly growing in recent years and attracts the research attention around the world.” somewhere earlier. In this particular paragraph the focus is on the specific robot. Additionally, the phrase “on the other hand” seems to be not relevant.
LINE 69. It is suggested to rephrase the sentence. Example (to consider): As such, it is a subject of many analyses, presented among others in [29-36]
LINE 70 To consider. I might be wrong, but it seems that the use of the word “construction” is not correct. Should that be e.g. “design” or “design and development”?
LINE 79 To consider. It is suggested to rephrase this sentence. Now it is confusing. E.g. the model is not developed in this paper, it is only presented in this paper.
LINE 91. To consider. Should that be: “Between the two robot models…”?
LINE 97. To consider. Inserting “:” after “packages” (…two software packages: RobotinoView…)
LINE 98. The phrase “RobotinoSim to visualize robot scene” is ambiguous. What “robot scene” is?
LINE 158. Should that be “It is a machine generated unique number…”?
LINES 157-159. It is suggested to apply Italic style to: “id”, “name”.
LINE 166. Should that be “either below or above”?
LINE 168. Should that be “dialog window”?
LINES 180-182 To consider. The phrase “the corresponding virtual model frame is created at the right side of the application’s frame windows” is confusing. Maybe showing this on an image could solve this problem?
LINE 185 To consider. Maybe it should be “To describe such mechanism…”
LINE 213 and further see remark for LINES 157-159.
LINE 305 “… the application reads…and finds…”
LINE 308. The phrase “the scene is modified by” might be confusing. Is it about modifying the view of the scene?
LINE 323 It is suggested to use Italic style for “w”
Line 403 should it been “RotLin”; ALSO – to consider - suggested modification: “…a RotLIn component (Figure 15a), consisting of a single transformer TF (Figure 15b)”
LINE 426 Suggested change: “….takes place without…”
LINE 424 Maybe it would be better to put (Figure 14) right after “rroll”
LINE 103 Figure 15, Figure 16 and in all other if applicable: LinRot OR RotLin?
LINE 430 It is suggested to also mention “Roller component” (consistent mentioning about “components”)
Equation (21). Maybe it would be good to add indicators “(a)” and (“b”) respectively to the two equations. This would make the further discussion easier to comprehend (LINES 473 and further)
Line 563 The abbreviation BDF is used for the first time. It should be explained/expanded either in the point title or at the beginning of the chapter.
LINE 578 To consider. All equations should be numbered
LINE 696 Should that be “…has been applied…”
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageLanguage revision is required. I've indicated it also in the comments for Authors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article can be published after some explanations
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We do not have comments of Reviewer 4.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have carefully reviewed the revised manuscript and the response letter you provided. I am pleased to note that you have effectively addressed all of my previous concerns and made appropriate revisions to the manuscript. After this round of review, I do not have any further questions or suggestions. Your efforts in improving the manuscript are evident, and I believe it now meets the standards for publication in Applied Sciences.
