رفع کامنت های مقاله

شرح پروژه

3-    a comparison with a baseline PID controller under identical wind inputs.
4-    The authors' team's assumption that only the pitch angle is affected while roll and yaw remain constant is questionable.
5-    The wind scenario is also weakly defined because average data from Open-Meteo are converted into a few force steps without a transparent derivation, a units check, an altitude correction, a turbulence model, or an uncertainty range.
6-    Parameters which are essential - such as mass, inertia, rotor geometry, servo limits, actuator dynamics, drag coefficients, sampling time, sensor assumptions, and controller implementation details are either missing or insufficiently specified.
7-    The gain-scheduling procedure is described at a conceptual level, but the actual scheduling variables, operating points, interpolation law, gain values, autotuning settings, and stability margins are not reported clearly.
8-    The use of K-nearest neighbours to find equilibrium or optimal operating points is insufficiently justified, and Table 3 does not explain how MSE values relate physically to stable operating points.
9-    The apparent-wind notation, the state vector dimensions, the PID integral term, and the controllability and observability matrices should be revised.
10-    The obstacle-avoidance and reinforcement-learning components appear incomplete and somewhat separate from the main controller's contribution. If reinforcement learning is claimed, the authors need to specify the algorithm, training process, state and action spaces, reward function, episodes, convergence behaviour, and validation results; otherwise, this section should be removed or reframed as a conceptual block.
11-    The graphs have limited explanatory value because axes, units, scales, legends, numerical performance indices, and error bands are often missing or hard to read.
12-    The statement that disturbances are fully suppressed is very optimistic because the figures still show transients, and no numerical criterion is given for "fully suppressed", "robust", or "zero chattering".
13-    The presented simulation results somehow support the narrower conclusion that the proposed GSC-PID configuration can stabilise the simulated pitch response for the defined step-like wind scenario. However, they do not support claims about guaranteed robustness, real inspection readiness, complete resistance to wind disturbances, or high-quality image capture - because these outcomes were not experimentally measured.
14-    The English is generally OK, but it requires considerable editing and polishing before publication (awkward phrasing, repeated statements, overclaiming words such as "guarantees", inconsistent terminology such as "tiltrotor" and "tilt rotor", incomplete captions, and sentences that blur methods, results, and conclusions).
15-    The reference list needs revision, too. Some of the entries are not formatted in accordance with MDPI requirements.

Suggestions for authors:

    Strengthen the results with numerical metrics, baseline comparisons, sensitivity tests, and preferably hardware-in-the-loop or real-flight validation; 
    Rewrite the introduction and conclusion to point out the novelty.
    Reduce unsupported claims.

16-    The literature review is superficial and does not adequately position the proposed work within the state of the art. The authors do not clearly identify the scientific gap that motivates the proposed study. Several recent and highly relevant works on tiltrotor UAV dynamics, aerodynamic modeling, disturbance rejection, gain scheduling, robust control, adaptive control, and wind estimation are not discussed.
17-    The manuscript repeatedly claims novelty based on the application domain (steel industry inspection), while novelty should primarily arise from methodological contributions rather than a specific industrial scenario. Consequently, the novelty of the manuscript remains unclear.
18-    One of the most significant shortcomings is the absence of a detailed description of the tiltrotor platform. The manuscript does not provide: vehicle dimensions, mass properties, moments of inertia, rotor characteristics, propeller specifications, servo actuator properties, aerodynamic coefficients, thrust models, mechanical layout of the tiltrotor system. Without these parameters, the presented mathematical model cannot be independently verified or reproduced.
19-    The manuscript does not include: aerodynamic force and moment models, drag coefficient identification, rotor–wind interaction effects, CFD simulations, wind tunnel measurements, experimental aerodynamic characterization.
20-    There is no: experimental validation, hardware implementation, flight testing, comparison against real measurements, validation of the disturbance model. As a consequence, the conclusions regarding robustness against wind disturbances cannot be supported.

21-    The scope and the content of the paper should be realigned. In present form sections discussing LiDAR, Obstacle Avoidance (Section 5), Reinforcement Learning (Section 5.1) seems to be acting rather as theoretical filler as they are not tested in your simulation. Thus, they are suggested to be removed. If they are significant to the paper’s contribution, rigorous simulation results, demonstrating their efficacy, should be provided and presented in the paper.
22-    It should be provided a rigorous mathematical justification for using K-NN to find equilibrium points in Section 7.2. Authors should explicitly define the generation of the “training” and “testing” data referencing in Figure 11. In present form this methodology remains completely unexplained.
23-    The results section must include a comparative analysis. It is recommended to provide simulations and compare results obtained for the proposed GSC-PID against a baseline controller (e.g. standard PID or SMC) under exact the same wind conditions to quantitatively prove its efficiency and superiority against standard one.
24-    Authors provide only MATLAB Simulink simulations claiming the method is proved to be robust under harsh industrial environment. Such claim requires higher fidelity. If physical prototype testing is not possible, at least, incorporate testing within a high-fidelity physics simulator (e.g. Gazebo) that includes realistic aerodynamic drag and sensor noise models.
25-    To ensure scientific reproducibility, explicitly list all physical parameters of the quadcopter used in the simulation, including total mass m, moments of inertia I, gravitation acceleration g and specific drag coefficients Ci.
26-    Double check paper formatting. For example, Figure 11 completely lacks descriptive labels on the X and Y axes, so rendering is uninterpretable. Figure 9 is a low-resolution and difficult to read. All figures must meet journal formatting requirements.

English is sufficient for the peer-review process, but it is recommended to undergo thorough proofreading pass by a native English speaker or professional academic editing service prior to final publication to eliminate minor grammatical flaws and elevate overall academic tone.

27-    The literature review is superficial and does not adequately position the proposed work within the state of the art. The authors do not clearly identify the scientific gap that motivates the proposed study.
28-    Several recent and highly relevant works on tiltrotor UAV dynamics, aerodynamic modeling, disturbance rejection, gain scheduling, robust control, adaptive control, and wind estimation are not discussed.
29-    The manuscript repeatedly claims novelty based on the application domain (steel industry inspection), while novelty should primarily arise from methodological contributions rather than a specific industrial scenario. Consequently, the novelty of the manuscript remains unclear.
30-    One of the most significant shortcomings is the absence of a detailed description of the tiltrotor platform. The manuscript does not provide: vehicle dimensions, mass properties, moments of inertia, rotor characteristics, propeller specifications, servo actuator properties, aerodynamic coefficients, thrust models, mechanical layout of the tiltrotor system. Without these parameters, the presented mathematical model cannot be independently verified or reproduced.
31-    The central claim of the paper concerns operation under wind disturbances; however, the aerodynamic modeling is highly simplified. The manuscript does not include: aerodynamic force and moment models, drag coefficient identification, rotor–wind interaction effects, CFD simulations, wind tunnel measurements, experimental aerodynamic characterization.
32-    There is no: experimental validation, hardware implementation, flight testing, comparison against real measurements, validation of the disturbance model. As a consequence, the conclusions regarding robustness against wind disturbances cannot be supported.

مهارت ها و تخصص های مورد نیاز

درباره کارفرما

کاربر760483

عضویت دو ماه پیش

4 پروژه ثبت شده ،

0 پروژه در حال انجام ،

1 پروژه آماده دریافت پیشنهاد ،

نرخ پذیرش پیشنهاد 0%