Data Traffic Modeling in RPAS/UAV Networks with Different Architectures
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review report of the paper (modelling-1155971)
The submitted manuscript “Data Traffic Modeling in RPAS/UAV Networks with Different Architectures” studied the issues of ensuring the required QoS during heavy traffic and necessary data for transmission in this case. The NetCracker Professional 4.1 software is used to obtain the relation between RPAS models performance and traffic parameters with different bandwidths and Bit Error Rate parameters.
The manuscript is well written in general, and there are some comments as follows:
- The resolution of all figures in the manuscript should be improved.
- Authors measure the average utilization (AU) versus the change of transaction size (from 10 bits to 10 Kbits as in Fig3 and based on Eq (5). How is the average utilization computed based on the variation of bandwidth and BER? You need to support your work by theoretical formulas.
- It is shown that RPAS2 in mode 2, 3, 4 are acted as relays to improve the coverage. Why do you only compute the average utilization in your study? What is the impact of RPAS2 on the packet travel time? You need to present the impact of change transaction size, bandwidth and BER to the average packet travel time (TT).
- In the related works section, please focus only on the work related to this manuscript.
- Conclusion section should be improved. Please avoid citing your figures and tables in this section.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article presents a very interesting and relevant topic. The writing quality and the organization are good. I just have some suggestions like improving Figure 2 (whose quality could be better), providing some additional thoughts about the parameters chosen for the tests (why those were selected) and maybe including some future research lines (although somehow they are already sketched in the Discussion section).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript explores the paradigm that Remotely Piloted Air Systems (RPASs) or Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAVs) are integrated as a communication platform with cellular networks using radio access.
The objective of the manuscript is to present quantitative characteristics of RPAS/UAV traffic parameters for radio access technology to cellular networks.
I suggest the authors to move the last paragraphs from Section 2 in the end of Section 1. Section 1 is too short in the current manuscript and the part about contribution usually goes under the introduction.
The paper presents four models and studies the issues of ensuring the required Quality of Service (QoS) by analyzing the dependences of the average channel utilization on the transaction size, the effect of different bandwidth, and the effect of the bit error rate. The last parameter depends on the used FEC. What type of FEC do you use? Consider to elaborate this part and support it with references.
T. D. Assefa, et al., "Performance Analysis of LTE Networks with Random Network Coding," In Proceedings of 39th International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO), pp. 601-606, May 2016
K. Kralevska, et al., "Balanced XOR-ed Coding," Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8115, pp. 161-172, 2013
In general, the manuscript is well-written.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
This paper presents the Data Traffic Modeling in RPAS/UAV Networks with Different Architectures. This paper studies the issues of ensuring the required Quality of Service (QoS) during heavy traffic and the choice of the necessary data transmission modes for this. My comments and suggestions are as under: - 1. Introduction part needs more details, one general figure may be included and explained. 2. A comparison table must be included in the Related Works portion. 3. Redraw Figure 2. 4. In results section why TS = 1 Kbits and TBT = 1 s, is taken? needs to be explained. 5. Rewrite the Conclusion part again and remove the reference [23]. 6. Minor English grammatical mistakes found, kindly remove.Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The reviewer is satisfied with the current manuscript.
