The manuscript has improved after the revision. There are however still issues here and there. There is a need to show more details in the fitting method, the use of F-test, and the derivation of the correction equations. A revision is necessary.

This manuscript has gone through two revisions. The authors have improved this work during each revision. There are, however, still major issues in the revised paper. For example, the regression equations for catch ratio vs wind speed do not include calm conditions, i.e. when wind speed = 0 m/s. For WS = 0 m/s. the equations (presented) would show over or under catch, not CR = 100%. This is not correct physically, as different gauges should measure same amount of precipitation in the calm condition. This is an important test for the regression analyses and results. I recommend the authors to carry out addition data analysis and to consider the condition for zero wind speed.

The quality of presentation also needs significant improvement. There are so many grammar issues in the text. It is difficult to read the text, particularly the new additions from the revision. The responses to reviews are not useful, with many Oks as the short answer. The authors need to communicate their ideas much better than what they have done.

I also have many specific comments and questions marked in the attached file. The authors will need to address them in the revision.

Very good work on the revisions, thanks for your time and effort to improve this paper...

See the file with some minor edits and comments please make necessary corrections. Thanks.