Analysis and Design Multiple Layer Adaptive Kalman Filter Applied to Electro-Optical Infrared Payload Vision System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author

The paper presents an interesting topic.  I encourage the authors to improve these issues, as the topic could be interesting for the readers. The document must be well prepared and presented.

The manuscript must be improved in the following aspects:

1. The abstract must be rewritten to include the problem, aim, general results and main contribution.
2. The literature review must be rewritten to express correctly the lack in previous papers and what is important to consider in the present paper.
3. I did not find a clear contribution to the literature in the paper, although the topic is interesting and the main idea is well defined.  The contribution must be clearly explained in the last paragraphs of the introduction.
4. The authors must consider more tests to validate the method.
5. The results must consider a complete analysis of the results. It is difficult to follow this section only presenting the figures without a clear explanation.
6. Better results are required to show that the paper complies with the aim and shows the contributions.
7. A better conclusion is required in this paper that shows the relevant findings.
8. Please follow the template and organize the paper according to the rules.
9. English must be corrected, especially in the literature review. Other sections must be reviewed to correct the use of many words.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO THE REVIEWER’S COMMENTS

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Associate Editor Comments

Comments: This is an interesting paper with good results, however, and as indicted by the reviewers' comments, the paper needs improvements in term of presentation, organization and results. I do encourage the author to review the paper and resubmit it.

Response:

Thank you for the comments. We have carefully revised the paper in accordance with the review comments. Detailed explanations are provided and all of the corrections are marked in BLUE in the revised version.

Reviewer 1

The paper presents an interesting topic. I encourage the authors to improve these issues, as the topic could be interesting for the readers. The document must be well prepared and presented. The manuscript must be improved in the following aspects:

Comments 1: The abstract must be rewritten to include the problem, aim, general results and main contribution.

• Response to comment 1:

      Thanks to the reviewer for the suggestion. We have reorganized the abstract in the revised version. The content includes the problem, aim, general results and main contribution. The summary has been reorganized, and all of the corrections are marked in BLUE in the revised version.

Comments 2: The literature review must be rewritten to express correctly the lack in previous papers and what is important to consider in the present paper.

• Response to comment 2:

      Thanks to the reviewer for the suggestion. In the revised version, the preface has been improved, where more literatures within three years and the corresponding statement have been added. And the motivation and basis of the research were added in the content of the revised version. Please refer to Page 2 to 4.

Comments 3: I did not find a clear contribution to the literature in the paper, although the topic is interesting and the main idea is well defined. The contribution must be clearly explained in the last paragraphs of the introduction.

• Response to comment 3:

      Thank you for the positive comment. The research motivation and the specific contributions of the research have been added in the revised version. Please refer to Pages 1 and 2.

Comments 4: The authors must consider more tests to validate the method.

• Response to comment 4:

      Many thanks to the reviewers for pointing out the research missing description and improvement recommendations. In the revised version of the article, we have reorganized and added more completed experimental results. Pease refer to Pages 17 and 18.

Comments 5: The results must consider a complete analysis of the results. It is difficult to follow this section only presenting the figures without a clear explanation.

• Response to comment 5:

      Many thanks to the reviewers for pointing out the study's lack of description and suggestions for improvement. The main aim of this study is to reduce the reliance on motors during image stabilization. In the revised version, we have added more complete experimental comparison, and more explanations have been added. Please refer to Pages 17-18.

Comments 6: Better results are required to show that the paper complies with the aim and shows the contributions.

• Response to comment 6:

      Many thanks for this. Please refer to the reply of the comment 5. More explanations have been done. Completed experimental comparison (Please see Pages 17-18) were also added.

Comments 7: A better conclusion is required in this paper that shows the relevant findings.

• Response to comment 7:

Thank you for the comments. More material has been added in the conclusions of the revised version.

Comments 8: Please follow the template and organize the paper according to the rules.

• Response to comment 8:

Thank you for this. The revised paper has been improved to fit the required template.

Comments 9: English must be corrected, especially in the literature review. Other sections must be reviewed to correct the use of many words.

• Response to comment 9:

      Thank you for this. The English writing of the revised version has been improved.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have done quite a lot of work devoted to the relevant topic. To improve the readers' perception of the article, I would recommend finalizing the following things:

1. Expand the abstract. Add information about the application of development for drones. In general you need to add an introduction.
2. The volume of the article is 17 pages, while the introduction (overview part) is less than 1 page. I advise you to expand the introduction and make some kind of conclusion on this information. This can end the introduction section. The review was carried out on only 11 sources, for such a voluminous article it should be expanded at least twice, so that the number of references was about 20-25.
3. Equation 1 takes 3 lines. It would be nice to fit it all on one line. Maybe by reducing the font a little.
4. In lines 99-101 you say that Fast Fourier transform (FFT) is faster than traditional computer convolution calculation. It would be appropriate here in the text to provide data on how much faster it is and what gain in time it can give in order to justify the need for the use of FFT with numerical data.
5. It would be good at the end of the first section or at the beginning of the second section to make a small description of what work was done in the article. This would facilitate the perception of the article as a whole when reading it further.
6. Please, check the formatting of the article. Up to 141 lines there is one font size, after that there is another front size.
7. Settings 266-280 you are talking about average power consumption. Also in the article you talk about the speed of movement and other changes. However, there is no “Methods and Materials" section that describes information about how you received and achieved these values, how you measured these data. It would be necessary to add such a section and describe in it the means of measurement or ways of obtaining data. Figures 7-10 show the measurement data. They are made with some precision. This should also be reflected in the Methods and Materials section.
8. There are a lot of abbreviations in the article. Of course, most of them is well-known, but nevertheless it is better to make a glossary for them.
9. Now the article presents general conclusions, without giving numerical indicators obtained in the article. It would be good to add specific numerical results obtained in this study to the conclusions section.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO THE REVIEWER’S COMMENTS

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Associate Editor Comments

Comments: This is an interesting paper with good results, however, and as indicted by the reviewers' comments, the paper needs improvements in term of presentation, organization and results. I do encourage the author to review the paper and resubmit it.

Response:

Thank you for the comments. We have carefully revised the paper in accordance with the review comments. Detailed explanations are provided and all of the corrections are marked in BLUE in the revised version.

Reviewer 2

The authors have done quite a lot of work devoted to the relevant topic. To improve the readers' perception of the article, I would recommend finalizing the following things:

Comments 1: Expand the abstract. Add information about the application of development for drones. In general you need to add an introduction.

• Response to comment 1:

      Thanks to the reviewer for the suggestion. We have reorganized the abstract in the revised version. The content includes the problem, aim, general results and main contribution. The summary has been reorganized, and all of the corrections are marked in BLUE in the revised version.

Comments 2: The volume of the article is 17 pages, while the introduction (overview part) is less than 1 page. I advise you to expand the introduction and make some kind of conclusion on this information. This can end the introduction section. The review was carried out on only 11 sources, for such a voluminous article it should be expanded at least twice, so that the number of references was about 20-25.

• Response to comment 2:

      Thanks to the reviewer for the suggestion. In the revised version, the preface has been improved, where more literatures within three years and the corresponding statement have been added. And the motivation and basis of the research were added in the content of the revised version. Please refer to Page 2 to 4.

Comments 3: Equation 1 takes 3 lines. It would be nice to fit it all on one line. Maybe by reducing the font a little.

• Response to comment 3:

      Thanks for this comment. The format of the equation (1) has been improved. Please see Page 5.

Comments 4: In lines 99-101 you say that Fast Fourier transform (FFT) is faster than traditional computer convolution calculation. It would be appropriate here in the text to provide data on how much faster it is and what gain in time it can give in order to justify the need for the use of FFT with numerical data.

• Response to comment 4:

      Thanks to the reviewers for pointing out the problem. The explanations have been modified on Page 5 of the revised version.

Comments 5: It would be good at the end of the first section or at the beginning of the second section to make a small description of what work was done in the article. This would facilitate the perception of the article as a whole when reading it further.

• Response to comment 5:

      Thanks to the reviewer for the suggestion. We have revised and supplemented the suggested content in this current edition, please refer to Pages 1, 2,3, 4, 17, and 18.

Comments 6: Please, check the formatting of the article. Up to 141 lines there is one font size, after that there is another front size.

• Response to comment 6:

      Many thanks to the reviewers for pointing out the problem. It has been corrected in the revised version of the article.

Comments 7: Settings 266-280 you are talking about average power consumption. Also in the article you talk about the speed of movement and other changes. However, there is no “Methods and Materials" section that describes information about how you received and achieved these values, how you measured these data. It would be necessary to add such a section and describe in it the means of measurement or ways of obtaining data. Figures 7-10 show the measurement data. They are made with some precision. This should also be reflected in the Methods and Materials section.

• Response to comment 7:

      Many thanks to the reviewer for pointing out the problem. In the revised edition, we describe the specifications of the external measurement accelerometers and the specifications of the accelerometers used in the optoelectronic payload system (see Page 10 of the revised version). In this research, the inertial measurement units are used in the experiment, where the angular scale range is ±2000°/sec, the angular of sensitivity is 16.4 LSB/degree/sec, the angular noise rate is 0.005 mdps/rtHz, the acceleration of scale range is ±16 gravity, and the acceleration of sensitivity is 2048 LSB/g. Two electric optical payload in the same platform and use the same inertial measurement units. The inertial measurement units used in electric optical payload are with angular scale range ±1000°/sec, angular of sen-sitivity 32.8 LSB/degree/sec, angular noise rate 0.005 mdps/rtHz, acceleration of scale range ±8 gravity, and acceleration of sensitivity 4096 LSB/g. Modifications have been added on Pages 16 and 17 of the revised version.

Comments 8: There are a lot of abbreviations in the article. Of course, most of them is well-known, but nevertheless it is better to make a glossary for them.

• Response to comment 8:

      Thanks to the reviewer for the suggestion. The abbreviations and symbols table has been added on Page 3 of the revised paper.

Comments 9: Now the article presents general conclusions, without giving numerical indicators obtained in the article. It would be good to add specific numerical results obtained in this study to the conclusions section.

• Response to comment 9:

Thank for this comment. Please refer to the replay of the comment 7. In the revised version, we describe the external measurement accelerometer specification and the accelerometer specification used in the optoelectronic payload system. The completed experimental data for this study has been added and the corresponding explanation was also given on Pages 10, 17, and 18 of the revised version.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

Thank you for performing the changes. I confirm that you have attended the comments. The paper now is better compared to the first version and these new results have improved the quality.

However, the paper must be reorganized according to the good content offered by the authors to the readers. Please try to consider only simple sections, such as 1) introduction, 2) materials and methods, 3) results and analysis, and 4) conclusion. This will improve considerably the presentation and readers will follow easily the content. In case you want to maintain the current sections, at least try to separate well the methods, from the results and analysis.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO THE REVIEWER’S COMMENTS

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Reviewer 1

Thank you for performing the changes. I confirm that you have attended the comments. The paper now is better compared to the first version and these new results have improved the quality.

However, the paper must be reorganized according to the good content offered by the authors to the readers. Please try to consider only simple sections, such as 1) introduction, 2) materials and methods, 3) results and analysis, and 4) conclusion. This will improve considerably the presentation and readers will follow easily the content. In case you want to maintain the current sections, at least try to separate well the methods, from the results and analysis.:

• Response:

      Many thanks to the reviewer’s comments. According to the reviewer’s suggestions, the revised paper has been well reorganized to clear express the works of this study.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks to the authors for their work. The abstract has become much better.

The introductory part has been revised and expanded by the authors. Now it has become significantly better. However, in my opinion, it would be possible to make it better. Please, add a generalizing conclusion about the need to improve the positioning and control systems of drones and the lack of accuracy of the existing systems. The number of references can still be increased to 18-22 sources. In the current state, 16 sources are the minimum for such an article.

Comments 4: In lines 99-101 you say that Fast Fourier transform (FFT) is faster than traditional computer convolution calculation. It would be appropriate here in the text to provide data on how much faster it is and what gain in time it can give in order to justify the need for the use of FFT with numerical data.

You write that the changes were made on page 5, but most likely, you mean page 6. And there is no data on the time savings.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO THE REVIEWER’S COMMENTS

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Reviewer 2

Thanks to the authors for their work. The abstract has become much better.

The introductory part has been revised and expanded by the authors. Now it has become significantly better. However, in my opinion, it would be possible to make it better. Please, add a generalizing conclusion about the need to improve the positioning and control systems of drones and the lack of accuracy of the existing systems. The number of references can still be increased to 18-22 sources. In the current state, 16 sources are the minimum for such an article.

Comments 4: In lines 99-101 you say that Fast Fourier transform (FFT) is faster than traditional computer convolution calculation. It would be appropriate here in the text to provide data on how much faster it is and what gain in time it can give in order to justify the need for the use of FFT with numerical data.

You write that the changes were made on page 5, but most likely, you mean page 6. And there is no data on the time savings.

• Response:

      Many thanks to the reviewer’s comments. In this revised version, the corresponding literatures have been added to 20 sources (Please refer to Pages 3 and 4). Also, more statement for generalizing conclusions about the drones has been added on Page 4 of the revised version. Regarding the comment 4, the time saving between FFT and the convolution calculation is not the concerned issue of this study. To avoid the confusion, the corresponding statement has been removed in the revised version (Please refer to Page 6).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors 

Thanks for performing the changes. Now the paper has improved considerably.