General considerations
The authors have indeed made considerable efforts to address the review comments (from both reviewers). Some of these changes seem to have led to considerable changes (i.e., the limiting size of the sub-volume size corresponding to the LES resolution and corresponding discussion) have considerably improved the paper. I am still not too enthusiastic about the ‘application example’ (and in the revised version particularly with the discussion of the results). Clearly, the authors advocate their high-cpu, high effort LES-based footprint estimation procedure (and this is their right and ‘duty’). However, the astonishing similarities between the full-fledged LES and the analytical model should also be discussed.
Overall I only have a number of minor comments that should be addressed before the paper can be recommended for publication.
Major comments
Minor comments
(lines in modified manuscript)
P9, l.33 to represent
P11, l. 9 due to my comment the authors have delete ‘lth’ but this makes the following notation quite unclear I suggest: ‘each particle’s (identified as ‘l’) coordinate….’
P11, l. 30 particle entries
P12, l. 1 of particle l
P14,l.31 the individual sectional sectional (better: sectoral) footprints inadequately converge and thereby become
P16, l.3 is expected to fall…
P17, l.3 give rise to an error
P18, l. 34 such a result
Tab 3 measurement height: 55.1 m. However on P3, .l19: measurement height is 60 m agl and on p22, l. 13: displacement height is 14.9 m: this yields a measurement height of 45.1 m. First this needs to be made consistent and second, possibly, the KM simulation (in Fig. 8) needs to be redone.
P26, l. 6 depends on
P26, l. 21 leads to prohibitive computational costs |