Development of a 6-DoF Driving Simulator with an Open-Source Architecture for Automated Driving Research and Standardized Testing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper documents the authors work in designing and assembling (parts of) a driver in the loop simulator. First, I will say at the outset, there isn't really anything particularly new or novel described in this paper. This is much the same process as many others have gone through in setting up or evaluating various simulators, without any new answers. However, many other simulators are not well documented, with only sparse details available, so I am supportive of the authors' attempts to have this information published.
Specific details to be addressed in the attached document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1 The review focuses on generic simulator requirements but omits a systematic comparison with other open-source Driver-in-the-Loop (DiL) platforms such as CARLA, OpenDS or Falcon, and does not reference recent ISO/XiL guidelines. Without that landscape analysis it is difficult for readers to gauge the novelty of the proposed architecture . I recommend adding a comparative table summarising hardware openness, latency, and human-factors fidelity across at least five contemporary simulators.
2 Experimental results reveal an end-to-end delay of ≈ 27 ms between commanded and measured platform motion, yet the design chapter never states target latency or allowable jitter. Please introduce a latency budget (e.g., < 15 ms for steering cues) and discuss mitigation measures such as distributed computing, real-time kernels, or redundant time-stamping.
3 The manuscript itself recognises that “current reliance on static values is insufficient” , but the subsequent benchmark still uses only peak displacement/velocity/acceleration. Dynamic characterisation (Bode plots, step responses, coherence with wash-out filters) is needed to justify selecting the PS-6TL-800. Consider adding frequency-response tests against SAE J2944 or ISO 21994 recommendations.
4 Table 1 shows a 35 % relative FOV loss at a pitch of 23.6° , yet the text merely notes that “high angles are rarely encountered.” Please quantify how often such attitudes occur in typical scenarios (e.g., hill cresting, hard braking) and describe counter-measures such as screen curvature or additional projectors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is undoubtedly an excellent study. The paper offers a comprehensive report on the development process of a vehicle driving simulator. However, the introduction section is inadequate, and there are numerous similar products already available in the market. The authors have not clearly articulated the distinctions between their work and previous research, making it challenging for readers to assess their academic contributions. Therefore, I recommend that the authors expand the introduction by incorporating relevant references and clarifying the innovative aspects of this study. Additionally, I have not identified any significant areas requiring modification, and thus, I suggest accepting this paper after the authors make minor revisions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsaccept
