UAV Path Planning Model Based on R5DOS Model Improved A-Star Algorithm

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript presented an improvement of an A-star algorithm based on the R5DOS model and combines it with the hop-point search algorithm for UAV path planning. This topic is interesting and has attracted readers. However, I want to give some comments to improve this draft as follows.

In the abstract, the author must summarize why the research was conducted.

The manuscript mentions some of the purposes that UAVs are used for, i.e., agriculture, forestry, geological exploration, etc. It is amazing that one of the use cases that have gained the most interest, UAV services in healthcare, is not mentioned at all.

The authors should review several related works regarding the UAV path planning algorithms.

What is the innovation of this study?

What is the contribution of this research?

It is better to give the organization of this paper at the end of the introduction section.

In lines 83-89, where is zone B, C? What is the PP(B, C)? The authors should describe these concepts in more detail.

In lines 114-120, the author should explain why the cost function f(n), H(n), G(n) are presented here. Which equation are they in?

There are two subsections 2.3. Improved A-star algorithm (line 136, 202)

It is better to increase the resolution of legends in Figs. 8-13

The authors should present some limitations and future works of this study.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please find attacched my comments

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The research work “UAV path planning model based on R5DOS model improved
A-star algorithm” is the good contribution in the domain they proposed path planning for UAV their contribution significantly reduce the computational complexity. However article is good but few observation may be incorporated in the revised manuscript to be acceptable for it:

·       Abstract and introduction section need to be revised by considering about problem bounding by state-of-the-art limitations, methods used, and what is the outcome. Further, explain the novelty of this paper. Justify how this work is different from the previous work in terms of the parametric values.

·       --As part of the last paragraph of the Introduction section, introduce the succeeding sections of the manuscript to guide the readers. Explain what makes the study different (or similar) from the rest of the studies in the literature. Also study fails to highlight clear motivation behind research work. Suggested to add one separate subsection in the introduction section: Objective, Motivation and Contribution.

·       Scope of the study should clearly mention. Moreover, organization of the article is also missing.

·       Throughout the article reference citation is very poor, I suggest adding one separate section after introduction that should be recent reported work in the state-of-the-art. I suggest following article which may be used in their discussion:

--A Survey on Green UAV-based Fog Computing: Challenges and Future Perspective”, Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies, Wiley

---Anuradha Banerjee, Abu Sufian, Krishna Keshob Paul, Sachin Kr Gupta*, “EDTP: Energy and Delay Optimized Trajectory Planning for UAV-IoT Environment”, Computer Networks, Elsevier, 202(2022), pp: 1-17, 108623, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2021.108623

Amina Khan, Sumeet Gupta, Sachin Kr Gupta*, “Unmanned aerial vehicle-enabled layered architecture based solution for disaster management,” Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies, Wiley, 32(12), pp: 1-29, 2021. DOI: 10.1002/ett.4370.

 Further, all algorithm should be presented in complete pseudo code, should clearly indicates input and output. Before conclusion section, one sub-sections should be comparative results discussion, that me presents comparative analysis of results with state-of-the-art works. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made some improvements to the original manuscript. I think it could be published after some polish and refinement.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx