The Development of a Visual Tracking System for a Drone to Follow an Omnidirectional Mobile Robot
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
-
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript can be published, the authors have improved the text following the remarks of the reviewer.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article presents the results of the development version of the visual tracking system for a drone cooperating with omnidirectional mobile robot. The tests include a complete set of design activities and laboratory tests to tune and verify the system.
Several shortcomings were noted in the article:
- there is no description of the accuracy of the system operation and the authors limit themselves to stating that the accuracy should be improved
- Figure 9 and its description are unclear. The basic lack of a drawing is the limitation to using the analysis to a flat viewport system while using aviation terminology including spatial concepts, such as pitch and roll, additionally the concept of height is introduced, which is not reflected in the presented methodology. In my opinion, for the sake of clarity, the authors should present a full interpretation of phenomena and spatial nomenclature in the analyzed situation with the terminology used, then making further simplifications to the situation presented in Figure 9.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors are encouraged to increase the scope of the abstract. We need to add research results to the abstract. It is not clear why part of the text is highlighted in red?
Author Response
Thank you for the comment of the reviewer 4. I had submitted a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Unfortunately, the scientific level of this paper is very low. It looks more like a student work.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors developed a visual tracking system for a drone, which guides a drone to track a mobile robot and accurately land on it when it stops moving.
The clarity of presentation and style of writing of the paper is ok.
Following changes would improve the paper:
- Abstract: “the successful rate” à the success rate
- What is the state-of-the-art (sota) in this field? What is your contribution? What goes beyond sota?
- Does the 320 and 240 in Eq. 6 refer to the camera resolution? Please explain.
- How do you set the parameters of the PID algorithm? Purely heuristically? Please explain.
- The result section must be reworked, from the sequence of figures, it is not clear how your approach worked. How performant is your approach? I would have expected more than just experimental trial.
Reviewer 3 Report
What the authors propose in this manuscript seems like a exercise that we often encounter at student robotics competitions. There the final result of the team's work is presented, the demonstrator for the audience, in this case Fig. 11, which can impress the audience and / or the jury. HOW this result was obtained is quite “dry” presented in the manuscript. I think the journal audience is interested in HOW this result was achieved. Therefore, I believe that the manuscript should be improved from this perspective.
- How does the approach in the manuscript differ from that in the cited references [6] - [8]? The answer to the question would improve the introductory chapter.
- I think that a minimum gloss on the connection between HSV and RGB would allow a better understanding of the relations (1)-(3). For example, the comment is well done in the case of paragraph 4.1.
- Logic of guidance law and the philosophy in Fig. 9 need clarifications.
- Chapter 6 should be detailed and completed with Concluding remarks.
- The bibliography is far too poor to deal with such a topic on the agenda.
