Dear author,

although I think that you have taken care of the referee's comments and added much more information about your software, I cannot yet accept your new manuscript for final publication. You state that a native speaker has worked on it, but when I read the text, my impression is that that was done not very thoroughly. The style of your text is still a big problem.

In the following I give some examples. These refer to sections 1 and 2 only. I stopped reading then, because to my opinion it is not my duty as the Editor to do the language editing. Please go on and work on the remaining sections as well. To be clear, I do not mean typos or grammar errors here. These will be treated anyway by the publisher before final production. I mean your style, unclear statements, etc.

Here are the examples (Px, Ly means page x, line y):

P1, L13: add "as well" after "but"
P1, L14: How can a modification be hidden or amplified? Please reformulate.
P2, L11: Which are the microphysical "core" processes?
P2, L15: What is "important supersaturation"? From your response to the reviewer I see that you mean an "unrealistically high supersaturation". Please say that.
P2, L17: What exactly is "more realistic"? Is it still unrealistic or realistic?
P2, L18/19: An equilibrium is only approached when the cell is completely isolated from the rest of the world. That is, no exchange of matter and no exchange of heat. Is this what you mean?
P4, L7: advance -> advancing
P7, section 2.1.2: please check the whole section. They are numerous language issues which make the text difficult to understand. For instance, what means "among these options is the time step one"? Is this time step number one? Or is the time step one of the options? Should "once BY simulation" rather mean "once PER simulation? And what means "to surround this call with conversions"? How can I surround a call with something? and what kind of conversions do you mean here?
P8, L12/13: please reformulate the sentence in brackets. It is not clear what you want to say.
P8, L14: What is the "intensity" of variables? Is this simply their value?

Dear author,

your paper is better now and I think it can be accepted after a final round of improvements.

Page and line numbers refer to your manuscript with track changes on.

P2, Sentence beginning in line 26 must be rewritten. It is spoiled and thus unclear.

P10, line 12: You state that the curves in Figures 8 and 9 are "perfectly indistinguishable". For Figure 9 I agree, but not for Figure 8. Please clarify.

There are still problems in Section 3.2

P 12, Line 4: has this "other" scheme a name? Please be more concrete.

Line 9. change "important" to something else or delete it. I would also be happy if you work again on this sentence. I cannot understand how a hypothesis (something in our minds) can cause a problem in a computer code.

Line 19/20: I assume that "model schemes" does here refer to the two schemes that you are going to test. It would be good if you clarify this, because it is easy to think that you mean your two reference schemes.

Line 21: "awaited" -> "expected".

Line 29/30: This is difficult to understand. I think I know what you mean but it takes a while to get it. It seems that you have used 600 different timesteps: 0.1, 0.2, .... 59.9, 60.0 seconds. The problem is that the word step is used twice in the sentence with completely different meaning. Please reformulate, and do this as well in the figure caption of Figure 11.

Page 13, first sentence: It is unclear what you want to say.

Line 23: "reduced" -> "too small" ?

Page 14, lines 29, 30: The sentence in brackets needs reformulation. I cannot understand it.

Page 23, line 12, 13: "when the temperature is positive" -> "when the temperature exceeds 0°C".
Page 24, line 2: similar "negative temperature". Avoid such expressions.

Page 24, line 13: "until time steps around 10 s" -> "for time steps up to 10 s".

Thanks for the final corrections. Now I can accept the paper.