Dear authors,
Thank you for the changes and improvements made to the manuscript so far. However, you have not taken all the referee comments appropriately into account and further modifications to the manuscript based on those are still needed. more specifically:

Referee #1
1. You have added some description on the mean radiant temperature but this new text describes mainly the radiative models from where mrt can be calculated but not the details referee #1 was asking. Due to the importance of this variable, even though it is calculated in the radiation module, you should provide more detailed description from each voxel as the referee was requesting.
2. The comments on better description of meteorological parameters in the manuscript has not addressed. You only mention the height in the referee response but this is not enough to answer the referee #1 comment.
3. The wind speed calculation is not addressed in the manuscript itself and thus more information should be added.
4. What happened to the description of iPT? This was left open and its not clear how the referee comment was answered
6. It would be possible to include some temporal plots in addition to the spatial “snapshots”. You could add a temporal plot with e.g. four subplots on certain points (wall, floor,…) from PALM-4U and from Rayman. This would be important evaluation on showing how the biomet module behaves on temporal scale.
7. Please, add the information also to the manuscript as this might be unclear for other readers also.
8. It still reads in the manuscript over the day which is not true as currently only two points are shown. I suggest you actually add temporal plot comparing Rayman and PALM 4U as suggested above in point 6.
9. The meteorological conditions should be added to the methods under Test case also.
11 Discussion concerning uncertainty in the input parameters should be added to the manuscript as suggested by the referee
12 It would be good to include this information to the manuscript as requested by the referee
16 You have highlighted text in Section 3.2 but it is not clear what has changed. It would be good to add lines that have changed to the referee responses as now it is difficult to follow what changes exactly has been made and to what referee comments do the changed concern.
17. Not clear what references have been removed and also no references to other studies as suggested by the referee have ben added.


Referee #2
To me it seems that the agent model is highly relevant for iPT and thus more detailed description should be added to the current manuscript. This does not need to be long but more details as suggested by referee #2 should be added.

I do not see whether such plots (input spatial plots) were produced to attachments. If not the authors should provide them as suggested. These can be added to the main text of to the attachments.

Please add line numbers and pages where the specific changes have been made as now it is difficult to read the changes.

Dear Authors,
Thank you for the corrections and additions made so far to the manuscript. However there are a few points, as requested by the reviewers, that need to be answered before the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
1. Even though radiation model is described in the PALM model paper the text does not include the information requested by the referees on mean radiant temperature. Even if this is calculated in another module the reader needs to have an understanding what kind of uncertainties there might be in its calculation and thus short description and discussion needs to be added. That is relevant part of the paper and is vital in interpreting the model output comparisons.
2. Yes, the meteorological parameters are provides by PALM model but more detailed information on this can be added in the methods section. Short text such as "Met variables at height 1.1 m in each grid will be used to calculate the ..."
3. What comes to the wind speed you do not answer in the manuscript directly how you handle such case when the 10 m height wind speed for UCTI is <0.5 m/s. In your previous response you mentioned that "The wind speed in 10 m above ground level is determined from extrapolating the wind speed at the cell center level closest to 1.1m above ground level (see above) by applying the wind profile from the original UTCI determination (Havenith, UTCI clothing).". So you do not directly get the wind speed at height 10 m from PALM simulation but rather extrapolate? This needs to be clarified. Also the workaround should be opened with a few sentences in addition to the reference.
4. Sorry for being unclear previously. I mean comparison between PALM and skyhelios. It would be important to have temporal evaluation as currently the model evaluation insufficient as pointed out by the referees. Somehow some temporal data should be shown as the snapshots do not tell how well the model performs especially as from the spatial plot it implies that very poorly. You also say that the large different between the two model simulations is due to Tmrt but you do not discuss in detail what is the cause to this. This was pointed out by the referee.
5. What comes to short discussion on the uncertainty of the input parameters, such text needs to be included. If there are large uncertainties in them these will impact the PALM thermal indices calculations and can impact the model performance. In minimum you can add sentences on how the input parameters simulated by PALM have been evaluated in past studies (and referring to them) and tell how large deviations has been seen and if large what implications these would have for the thermal indices.