Dear Authors,

The reviewers find that the new version of manuscript has been much improved compared to the initial submission. However, the third reviewer still has some comments (see report #2) which must be addressed before publication. I am also copying here:

=============
Dear Editor,

In this work the authors augment the cloud microphysical scheme of the ECHAM model by including prognostic treatment of drizzle and snow. The authors carry out a detailed analysis of the sensitivity of the simulated cloud properties to the new implementation. They show that the simulation of accretion and autoconversion processes as well as of cloud glaciation move in the right direction as compared to observations. It is too early to tell whether such improvement leads to a better representation of aerosol effects and of climate. Still, I find the work interesting and of importance for the atmospheric community, and recommend its publication in ACP.
Coming late to the review process I see that the work has been quite improved with respect to the initial submission. Therefore I have just very few, minor comments to be addressed before publication (line numbers refer to the revisited submission).
-It is not clear why the total aerosol indirect effect is increased while at the same time the sensitivity of liquid cloud properties to CCN concentration is reduced. This seems counterintuitive and a sentence explaining this must be added to Section 3.3.
- Line 40, page 3. Remove the word “clouds”.
- Line 63, page 4. It must be “offsets”.
-Line 181, page 8. Specify that these are microphysical rates. I assume that the total tendency should also include terms for advection and turbulent diffusion which are not shown.
- Line 190, page 9. Please add a sentence explaining how the precipitation cloud fraction is calculated. Is it the same for rain and drizzle?
- Line 275, page 12. An exponential distribution implies \mu_s=0 not 1.
=========

Editor: Xiaohong Liu