Dear Author,
Thank you for submitting your updated manuscript and for carefully replying to the reviewers’ remarks. I consider that you have answered most of them but I still have some questions regarding some remarks of the first reviewer.
I also have some additional remarks that you will find in the attached document.
Finally, while reading the manuscript, I could not resist making many propositions to improve the style of the text that you will also find in the attached document. To construct this file, I copied and pasted the content of your pdf manuscript in a Word file and made my changes in revision mode, so that you can easily identify them. The lines of the original manuscript appear separately, sorry for this but I think this was the most efficient way to propose many minor modifications. I hope you will find this useful to improve the style of the manuscript.

With best regards,
Sophie

Dear Author,

That you very much for this careful revision that answers all my remarks. I let you take care of the following minor points before publication:

1- The text about the mapped and unmapped grid points is much clearer now. I just suggest to change p.9 l. 35 "... to find mapped and unmapped grid points" for "... to identify unmapped grid points for the bilinear interpolation". And I think you can remove the "After finding mapped and unmapped grid points" at the beginning of the next sentence but add a "then" after "can" in that sentence ("... the field can then be interpolated from the source ...". Also I think that Figure 4 and all the details it contains is not needed (but I'll let you decide on that).

2- Figures 9 and 10, their captions and the related text are fine but I think that the speed-up is still not precisely defined.

3- P.15, l.11, please change "but it is not evident in HR case and scales very well ..." for "but it is not evident in HR case that scales very well ..."

Thank you again and best regards,
Sophie