I would like to thank the authors for their work and scientific contribution.

The wind model presented in the manuscript constitutes an important contribution to the modelling science within the scope of Geoscientific Model Development. It addresses an important gap in urban microclimate and outdoor thermal comfort comodeling, thereby having potential to advance these fields.

The manuscript is well-structured, providing sufficient detail regarding both the model and the experiment. The strengths and limitations of the model are presented in a balanced manner. Moreover, the accessibility of the data and code ensures the reproducibility of the results.

It is strongly recommend that the paper undergoes a technical revision. In particular, the authors are advised to adress the following sentences or sections:

• Line 248, entire paragraph: The paragraph starting at line 248 should be restructured for improved clarity. It may be beneficial to introduce and explain the 'heighest stacked block rule' (mentioned in line 253) prior to referencing it. Additionally, clarification is needed regarding what do 'If equal' (in line 250 and 251) refer to. Shouldn't the first 'If equal' (line 250) be 'If unequal'?
• Line 359, 'below 0.5 and above 1.5 m/s': As written, it implies no wind speeds within the range of 0.5—1.5 m/s. 
• Line 137, bulleted list: I recommend changing the bulleted list to a numbered list, for clarity.
• Line 301, links in the paragraph: The links within the paragraph are advised to be moved into footnotes, for readability.
• Line 331, new paragraph/description: For clarity and consistency, I suggest providing a brief description of the evaluation steps, such as via a single-sentence description of what sub-images on Figure 17 present and how were obtained.
• Line 396, 'green dash line': Please note that there is no dashed line in the referenced figure.

The attached PDF contains further recommendations regarding the use of commas, prepositions, and word choices in some cases. The authors should adopt as many corrections as they feel fit and justified.

The authors have developed a valuable open-source urban wind simulation model, which has been integrated into UMEP. This model utilizes the Röckle (1990) methodology. It has been demonstrated that this open-source model generates a wind field comparable to that of the QUIC-URB model, highlighting its promising potential. The authors have done a commendable job of presenting the data. Overall it is a good paper. However, there are some instances where sentences appear incomplete or somewhat incoherent, and it is suggested that the authors aim for more direct and concise writing. I have a few minor suggestions:

The abstract could be drafted in a more scientifically question-driven tone, resembling a publication for a scientific journal rather than a manual.

While the open-source nature of the model is its most important feature, the authors should also highlight other significant aspects, such as underlying mechanisms. If this model is merely an open-source version of QUIC-URB, it would be valuable to explain its scientific importance.

The conclusion should be more concise and straightforward, clearly highlighting the improvements made and how these advancements contribute to the field.