Dear authors, please find attached my comments/suggestions to your manuscript.

The authors present a compelling methodology for generating turbulent inflow conditions for floating offshore wind farms, with a particular focus on performance under waked conditions. The study translates results obtained from wind tunnel experiments to offshore wind simulations using the FAST model. The manuscript is concise and the figures are high quality and helpful for interpreting the findings. The paper aligns well with the topics included in Wind Energy Science. Addressing the following questions and comments would improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

A grammatical review would improve the clarity of the paper, with particular emphasis on consistency (RMS and rms are employed variously throughout the manuscript, for example) and employment of past versus present tense.

Line 189: The sentence beginning “Compared with typical bluff-body flows, the eigenvalues convergence is slow…” would benefit from the inclusion of numbers to support the comparison.

The paragraph beginning on Line 214 is interesting and could benefit from additional reasoning and speculation from the authors about the correlations for various modes. The authors provide speculation for the correlations noted for modes 1 and 2 for the spanwise coordinates, but it would be helpful to provide some discussion of the correlations for the wall-normal coordinates.

Line 223: The word “velocities” appears to be missing from the sentence beginning “RMS profiles of the reconstructed along z…”

Line 230: “loses” instead of “looses”

Line 270: Why was 6.6 selected as the tip-speed ratio?

Figure 10: To improve comparison, it would be helpful to have the same y-axis range for a-2 and b-2.

In the Conclusions section, it would be helpful to include a discussion on the authors’ speculation on the applicability, potential challenges, and uncertainty of this technique, which is based upon wind tunnel measurements, to a real world operating floating offshore wind farm.

Line 333: “allow” instead of “allows”

Given that the appendix is quite short, it could easily be incorporated into the main body of the manuscript.