Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, the authors provide an experimental and simulated indoor residential radio channel model for V-band frequencies, ranging from 50 to 75 GHz, and perform packet error rate and throughput measurements at 60 GHz using IEEE 802.11ad transceivers. Overall, I believe that the research has some contributions. I suggest that this paper be revised to improve its quality. There are comments as follows:
1. The novelty of this work has not been properly clarified.
2. The author is recommended to discuss closely-relevant studies in a new sub-section (e.g., Background and Related Work) in an organized manner, where the advantages and shortcomings of existing works can be discussed.
3. Please enhance reasonable analyses and discussions in section 4.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents the implementation and simulation of V-band channel model for indoor scenarios.

The main issue with the paper is its novelty. There are so many implementation and simulation works on channel models that exist in the literature, where some of them are also based on mmWave channel.  The first few sections don’t include any novel contribution other than describing the implementation setup.

The Ray launching algorithm also doesn’t provide any novelty to the work, as research based on this has already been done in the past.

The authors are suggested to clearly distinguish this work from previous works and provide a comprehensive comparison of their findings with others.

Furthermore, the discussion on related works is unsatisfactory. The presentation of related works based on some of the key topics of the paper, such as non-line-of-sight links of the channel, is inadequate.

The estimation of throughput is vague. It is understood that it is measured with the help of SNR; equations might be useful explaining the throughput estimation based of SNR or error rate.

Finally, the authors are suggested to make conclusions shorter; it is recommended just to include the main contribution and findings.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have well addressed my comments regarding the feasibility of their proposal. In the absence of any further comment, I recommend the acceptance of the paper.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much comments, and suggestion to accept the updated manuscript. 

With kind regards,
Brecht

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been well modified according to my comments. The related work section seems much enriched now, however, the authors are still suggested to discuss a few previous works related to the NLOS link of the mmWave channel. Additionally, there are few minor mistakes concerning English language and grammar. A careful further revision of the manuscript is needed before its acceptance.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you for your valuable comments. In the revised manuscript, we have added literature and discussion on NLOS mmWave channels. We have also revised the full paper with respect to English grammar and language. 

I refer to the file 'latexdiff_v2.1_v2.3.pdf' for all the changes compared to the previous submitted version. 

We hope the changes provide sufficient clarity to warrant this resubmitted manuscript a publication in MDPI Electronics, but look forward to any other recommendation to increase the quality of the paper. 

With kind regards,
Brecht