The reviews of the paper are quite critical and you chose not to comply with many of the comments. However, I think you need to be more clear in the conclusion about the limitations as both the reviewer request. It should be very clear, also in the conclusion, that the "threshold resolution" is only valid for this particular terrain. It should also be stated that this is not a critical investigation of flow result but that the flow solver is only used to estimate the impact of terrain resolution on the flow. The unrealism of the roughness should also be mentioned there. Please include these matters in the conclusion. You may then call the section "Discussion and conclusion".
It is strange that most of the correction in the track changes document are not really changes like "flow" -> "flow" many places in the abstract and so in the rest of the paper. Did something go wrong?
Apart from these changes I would like you to
1) change figure 1: Remove strange box to the left in a). Make the height legend clearer (and with less significant digits. For b) explain the red dots in the figure caption.
2) Figure 11: This is three almost identical figures?!
3) l 297 bad reference "Table ??" and l 62 bad ref to citation.
4) refer to report with more details on the data and where they can be downloaded.
I think the paper is an important and unique contribution, but a bit more care in including the essence of the reviewers criticism is needed and also a bit more care in the preparation of the manuscript.

Thanks you for improving the manuscript

Dear Authors,

congratulations on the acceptance of your paper, and thank you for choosing Wind Energy Science for publishing your work.

Best regards
Carlo L. Bottasso