This paper deals with very interesting questions when comparing 3d datasets of different time steps. A high rate of automatization in analyzing datasets is of great importance, especially when it comes to a high temporal resolution of 3d models. So I think, the outcomes of the study are of great interest for the scientific community. But in order to publish the paper, I recommend some revisions of the structure of the paper and some minor technical adjusments.
All in all the quality of this manuscript improved as the authors have considered most of the reviewers’ recommendations and tried to answer their questions.
Nevertheless, there are still some parts that need a little bit of modification and reworking. Especially the structure of the manuscript needs a revision, as e.g. a discussion section is completely left out:
- I think it would be of great advantage for the reader if you rewrite the “Abstract”. In the current version the reader can only get very little information, what he can expect from reading this paper. The first part of the abstract, where you give an overview of currently existing works, is completely irrelevant for this section. Instead you should focus on what you really worked on and what were the most important outcomes of this research.
- In my opinion the reader would benefit if you would mention a clear research question in the introduction. I highly recommend to state this question in the first section. You give a great overview of the current state of research in your paper, but one does not really know why this is of interest until one has read section 3, where you mention your working goals.
- In terms of improving the readability of your paper, I think you should merge sections 1 and 2 as both are introductory. I suggest to build up one Introduction section, where you can have two or more subcategories, e.g. general motivation, state of research…
- In section 3 you present the methods of your studies. Why don’t you call it “methods” and then divide it in several subcategories. If a reader is searching for special informations on the methods, he will be thankful when he can find these general scientific terms.
- I would recommend to change the “Results” section into “ Results & Discussion” and add some discussive paragraphs to each study area. If you want to split up results and discussion into two separate sections you have to review your existing results and move all subjective phrases, e.g. p17r11 “quite positively”, to the discussion section.
- I would highly recommend that your figures are consistently. Some legends have units while in other figures you just mention the unit in the figure caption. I would prefer if you can add the unit in each graphics. Additionally would it be great if you could manage to have consistent legends throughout all graphics. You use the same color ramp throughout your paper. So, why not use the same legend for all graphics. Now they appear all different (broad, thin, with gaps, continuous…). Even though you used different software, the overall appearance of the figures would really benefit, if they have a uniform layout.

Furthermore there are some minor aspects on which you should focus:
- p.5: Can you somehow visualize the different method steps? I think just a simple flow chart could help to better follow the different steps of ICProx.
- Table 1: leave out the units after all values (in some cases you already did). You already mentioned them in the headings.
- p8r16: one parenthesis is missing
- Fig. 4: could you dash the arrows or just put them in the background to improve the readability of the letters.
- p11r5: I think, “… at the top of ridge…” should be “at the top of THE ridge”.
- p11r14: “points clouds” should be “point clouds”
- Fig. 6: add a colour ramp or legend for the left and centre graphics of the figure. Even if you mention the colours in the following table, you could clearly improve the readability of the figure.
- p16r16: “… of the tongue may were…” should be “of the tongue were”
- Fig.8 and Fig. 10: same as figure 6.

First of all I want to thank the authors for their effort and work on this manuscript. The manuscript was under review by three referees and you answered all of their suggestions directly in the manuscript or provided additional information.
The readability of the manuscript benefitted in a great way after you restructured some parts.

I suggest to publish this manuscript as is.


Thank you for choosing this special issue for publishing your paper. And additionally I want to thank the three referees for their feedback and suggestions on this manuscript.

Dear Authors,
Thank you for your submission to ESurf. I am delighted to inform you that your paper has now been accepted for final publication. Thank you for all of your efforts working with the manuscript to improve it (as outlined by the Associate Editor)
All the best,
Tom Coulthard