Rule-Based Multiple Coverage Path Planning Algorithm for Scanning a Region of Interest

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very interesting paper about a relevant topic. However, the simulation results must be improved, you are missing key metrics. Here are all of my comments:

1. In the abstract, directly mention if your approach is for VTOL or fixed wing drones.
2. Line 60: "using drones" -> be more specific, state VTOL
3. Line 68: unclear why 4
4. L126: incorrect, meta-heuristic does not (always) find the optimal solution but near-optimal
5. Simulation results (the main issue with your paper): a. Add calculation time, b. Compare to spiral and boustrophedon motion to see the improvement (both in total distance travelled and calculation time) c. What about more irregular polygons in stead of always a rectangle.

Especially the simulation part is weak, it is important that you show more results especially the calculation time is important. Which needs to be improved before publishing the paper.

For future work it would be really interesting if you can find the best take off point for the drones. So a square around the edge of the ROI, then rerunning your algorithm to find the optimal take off point.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

please refer to the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is about an interesting topic that has been studied nowadays for its importance on drone path planning and time flying improvements. Authors present an algorithm for covering a path while one or multiple drones scan a region of interest.

In section 3 authors present the problem formulation where 3 characteristics and 2 constraints are presented, but it seems that authors do not change the word characteristics for constraints or forget to state the constraints.

Although the article is interesting, some questions arise, for example, which is the main contribution or improvement compared with other similar methods? Why do authors do not compare the proposed method with others that perform similar path planning problems? It is highly recommended that authors add these main questions and make a fair comparison between this method and others.

Authors said that “it was verified that the proposed algorithm generates the optimal number of paths for area scanning. In addition, the makespan difference between the generated paths was also reviewed considering the case where multiple paths are flown at once by multiple drones.” How can these be concluded? Optimal number of paths for the drones, for energy consumption, for the maximum or minimum flying time, for the maximum or minimum number of drones, or which is the parameter to conclude that is the optimal number? Then, authors said that the number of drones has not been considered, but they concluded that “the makespan difference between the generated paths was also reviewed considering the case where multiple paths are flown at once by multiple drones” but this conclusions is more a depending conclusion that if ten paths where generated, then the drones can perform the path better or how does this is concluded?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The authors have made detailed and thorough revisions, and the response letter is very detailed. I am highly satisfied with the revised manuscript and agree to its immediate publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is about an interesting topic and authors addressed the main points sufficiently to improve the quality of it.