Performance Evaluation of a Quadcopter by an Optimized Proportional–Integral–Derivative Controller
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
pleae consider my comments
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
check minor edits
Author Response
Response to the reviewer:
Firstly, the authors would like to pay large thankful for the valuable suggestions made by the reviewer. In the revised version the Arduino MCU of “Arduino@ MEGA 2560”, has been replaced with the STM@ “stm32f401ccu6” in order to obtain a much better performance of the proposed PID. Moreover, the order of the References has been rearranged, since there are extra articles added in the revised version. In summary, the responses corresponding to the comments are illustrated below,
Response to reviwer_1:
- It explains the mathematical calculations required for quadcopter stability and reading data from the sensor. The study could have become more interesting by mentioning artificial intelligence algorithms.
Res. Thanks for the valuable comments.
There have been some mentions of artificial intelligence algorithms (machine learning) being inserted into sub-section 2.2.
- The study is relevant to the presented purpose. It is of interest to beginner candidates in terms of stability and control. The study could have become more interesting by mentioning artificial intelligence algorithms.
Res. Thanks for the valuable comments.
- Sharing the basic PID architecture simulated with the Proteus tool and the advanced hardware used are the original parts for the study. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
Res. Thanks for the valuable comments.
- Bldc engine is used as an abbrevıatıon, and ıt should be stated exactly once. The graphics and figures used in Figure 6 should be more clear and the arrows more professional. In addition to this, giving a lot of numerical data made the study easy to understand.
Res. Thanks for the valuable comments.
A description of BLDC has been completely stated and added at the beginning of the Introduction section.
The graphics and figures used in Figure 6 have been revised more clearly with the arrows professionally.
Yes, there have more numerical data from the in-depth made by extra experimental inserted into the “Detailed Discussions and Results” section. It is believed that this will increase the ease of study for the audiences.
- Consistent results were obtained with the application and arguments of the data obtained on the Arduino Mega 2560. At the same time, the engine was evaluated in terms of many parameters and the comparisons were found to be consistent.
Res. Thanks for the valuable comments.
- The study on the development of the flight controller has achieved its purpose and has been verified with numerical data by PID method.
Res. Thanks for the valuable comments.
- Please also consider the following references: ---
--https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AEAT-06-2021-0180/full/html?skipTracking=true
--https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AEAT-08-2019-0171/full/html
--https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AEAT-02-2022-0050/full/htm
Res. Thanks for the valuable comments.
Yes, the suggested references are included and analyzed in the relevant position of the revised version. There are two suggested papers are corresponding added to [2] and [3].
Thank you so much.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors claim that they proposed a Performance Evaluation of a Quadcopter by an Optimized PID. I recommend not to publish this paper due to very low level of quality, both in research as well as in editiorial level.
I don’t see any optimized PID?, even the word „optimized” it is impossible to find in text of the paper (try CTRL+F+optimized). „Optimal” is used once in the whole text.
What I see in presented draft is more a technical report about building some solution for typical UAV architecture. Where are pros and cons regarding the state-of-the-art?
Two very basic mathematical equation, few low quality figures, short conclusion, few new references.
I strongly recommend to work with this paper much more.
Futhermore, please improve such typos like „Blue tooth”, “Mathegologies” (title of subsection), etc.
Author Response
Response to the reviewer:
Firstly, the authors would like to pay large thankful for the valuable suggestions made by the reviewer. In the revised version the Arduino MCU of “Arduino@ MEGA 2560”, has been replaced with the STM@ “stm32f401ccu6” in order to obtain a much better performance of the proposed PID. In summary, the responses corresponding to the comments are illustrated below,
Response to reviwer_2:
--The authors claim that they proposed a Performance Evaluation of a Quadcopter by an Optimized PID. I recommend not to publish this paper due to very low level of quality, both in research as well as in editiorial level.
Res.: Thanks for the valuable comments which motivate much more work has been improved in the revised version of the article. Even the “very low level of quality” has been promoted to the revised submitted manuscript finally. However, all the revised places are interpreted in the following lists. Moreover, the revised article has added much extra work including the Referenced papers, the results of performance evaluation from the simulation, and so on. Please review the revised version.
-- I don’t see any optimized PID?, even the word „optimized” it is impossible to find in text of the paper (try CTRL+F+optimized). „Optimal” is used once in the whole text.
Res.: Thanks for the valuable comments. The word “optimized” is extra enhanced in-depth and makes much more statement in the revised version if it is critical. It (optimized) can be looked at many times with the try of typing “CTRL+F+optimized”.
--What I see in presented draft is more a technical report about building some solution for typical UAV architecture. Where are pros and cons regarding the state-of-the-art.
Res.: Thanks for the valuable comments. The statements of pros and cons are added and regarded in the revised version where more description of PID architecture has been stated in advance. Moreover, since the research is completely implemented in building up a brand-new UAV with the proposed PID adaptive controller. Therefore, the comments from the reviewer called it “a technical report” that would not be really agreed upon by the authors. Certainly, the opinion of the reviewer should be accepted respectively.
--Two very basic mathematical equation, few low quality figures, short conclusion, few new references.
Res.: Thanks for the valuable comments.
The reason that there have “two very basic mathematical equation(s)” attached, since that the proposed brand-new UAV (shown in Fig. 5) belongs to practical experimental results. Thus, there is just a few basic theoretical equations are illustrated.
Most of the captured figures are revised with higher-quality editorial formats.
The cited References are widely expanded to the requirements of the reviewer, that is, 5 more references (with red colors shown in the Reference section) are added to the revised version. The reviewer can give suggestions of the relevant existing papers if necessary.
-- I strongly recommend to work with this paper much more.
Res.: Thanks for the valuable comments.
There are much more outcomes illustrated in the “Results” section of the revised version. It is believed that can match pretty well with the high level of quality of the reviewer.
-- Futhermore, please improve such typos like „Blue tooth”, “Mathegologies” (title of subsection), etc
Res.: Thanks for the valuable comments. Accordingly, it is not only the typos pointed out by the reviewer that has been revised, but the expression throughout the article has also been checked carefully.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
There are no more comments there.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Reviewer 3,
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
There are no more comments there.
Response to the reviewer:
Firstly, the authors would like to pay large thankful for the valuable suggestions made by the reviewer.
To improve the Quality of English Language, the “Abstract” section is fully revised.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have proposed a so-called optimized PID for quadrotor. The attempt is interesting, but there are several issues.
1. Why it is called optimized PID? I doubt one can prove mathematically that the gains are optimal.
2. Authors should survey better quality journals and conferences for state of the art (see "Robustifying payload carrying operations for quadrotors under time-varying state constraints and uncertainty", "Efficient manoeuvring of quadrotor under constrained space and predefined accuracy", "Introducing switched adaptive control for quadrotors for vertical operations" and many more in the same direction). Existing works have already shown that PID is not efficient. Then choice of such method is questionable.
3. Comparative experiments with existing works should be given.
Not much to comment.
Author Response
Reviewer 4,
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors have proposed a so-called optimized PID for quadrotor. The attempt is interesting, but there are several issues.
- Why it is called optimized PID? I doubt one can prove mathematically that the gains are optimal.
- Authors should survey better quality journals and conferences for state of the art (see "Robustifying payload carrying operations for quadrotors under time-varying state constraints and uncertainty", "Efficient manoeuvring of quadrotor under constrained space and predefined accuracy", "Introducing switched adaptive control for quadrotors for vertical operations" and many more in the same direction). Existing works have already shown that PID is not efficient. Then choice of such method is questionable.
- Comparative experiments with existing works should be given.
Response to the reviewer:
Firstly, the authors would like to pay large thankful for the valuable suggestions made by the reviewer. In summary, the responses corresponding to the comments are illustrated below,
- The authors would like to absolutely agree with the reviewer’s opinions about the proposed “optimized PID”. Right, it is definitely difficult to prove mathematically the gains are optimal, however, the results from the experimental evaluation of performance for the PID have demonstrated the fact of “optimized PID”. On the other hand, the reason is that the stability of the PWM signals can be easily observed in-depth in Fig. 7 of the article. It is without doubt seen that a PWM data response signal that is always kept stable from the flight controller’s starting point to the end. Accordingly, the PWM signals generated from the so-called “optimized PID” controller can lead the UAV to operate and work rigidly.
- Yes, the 3 suggested significant articles had been studied and would be cited in the revised version which will significantly illustrate the state-of-the-art article.
Though the PID is not efficient for the quadrotor mentioned in the suggested papers when the surroundings face external disturbances and parametric variations. However, the scenario considered in the current article points out that the deployment PID focused on the practice experiment without too much mathematical analysis. That is, the motivation for the proposed “optimized PID” is trying to give the contributions of the following points,
(1). Trying to obtain the most stable conditions of the UAV by adjusting the three parameters, Kp, Ki, Kd, of a PID controller.
(2). Trying to obtain the optimized results from a PID controller which can implicitly surveillance the roll, the pitch, and the yaw for a quadrotor precisely.
(3). Trying to implement the proposed “optimized PID” with some experimental tools (Proteus®, Matlab/Simulink®, and IDE of MCU) for validating the obtained results. It is believed that these outcomes from the experimental simulation are of interest to beginner candidates (even senior scholars) in terms of stability and control for a PID controller.
(4). Eventually, the deployment of devices with data-driven of edge computing concepts has been discussed in the proposed methodologies. It is believed that edge computing techniques would become the main trend for embedding into a UAV, even a 6-DOF UAV Quadrotor.
In response to the reviewer’s questionary, the above-mentioned subjects have also been inserted into the Introduction section of the revised version.
- The comparative experiments with the relevant existing works of [15] have been provided in advance, and it is given and extra-described after Fig. 8 in Section IV of the revised version. Moreover, there is a table named Table II that lists the comparative results and is inserted into the revised version.
Thank you so much.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
it is ok in this version
Author Response
Reviewer 1,
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
it is ok in this version.
Response to the reviewer:
The authors would like to pay large thankful for the valuable suggestions made by the reviewer.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for making the changes, however in such a short time I understand that many changes cannot be included. I stand by my earlier opinion. In my opinion, the article should be thoroughly improved and sent for re-evaluation in the future.
Author Response
Reviewer 2,
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thank you for making the changes, however in such a short time I understand that many changes cannot be included. I stand by my earlier opinion. In my opinion, the article should be thoroughly improved and sent for re-evaluation in the future.
Response to the reviewer:
Firstly, the authors would like to pay large thankful for the valuable suggestions made by the reviewer.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
No further comments.
No further comments.
Author Response
It very much appreciates the valuable comments on the article. The editing to the English language has been checked completely, and a few of them are detail revised and expressed again with the red words.
