This research incorporates a bin method into a bulk microphysical scheme (WDM) to calculate the warm rain process and uses this scheme to investigate the warm rain seeding effect through several sensitivity experiments. I suggest that the authors should provide more information about this new scheme.

1. Line 625: “The WRF model employs … the third-order Runger-Kutta numerical method for solving the time split integration of the governing equation”. In fact, the third Ruger-Kutta method is just an option in the namelist. input, you can also choose the fifth-order one, so it is not “The WRF model employs”, but you choose this third-order method. Please reword.
2. Line 98: “the bins of CCNs whose size extends the critical radius will be able to activate the corresponding liquid bins”, How to understand “corresponding liquid bins”? I feel that the WDM-NCU scheme has not been introduced in detail in this manuscript. What is the size range of the 43 bins? Which microphysics processes are calculated in this bin scheme? Can this scheme reflect the fact that large CCN becomes large cloud droplets? How does the scheme deal with the coupling of the bin part and bulk part?
3. Line 102: “After the number concentration and mixing ratio of the liquid bins is calculated, they are used in the calculation of the mixing ratio and number concentration of cloud and rain, and the microphysics processes continue as is the case in the original WDM6”. Do you mean that the bin part of the WDM-NCU scheme only calculates the nucleation process? How do you separate the cloud and rain categories from the liquid bins? The authors have to provide more information.
4. Fig. 5 The simulated accumulated precipitation comes from which domain? Is the horizontal space resolution close to the observed data?
5. Fig. 6 What is RCWF and RCSL? They have not been explained in the manuscript. And which are observed data and which are simulated results?
6. Fig. 7, I suggest to depict the simulated results using dashed lines and put them over the observed data. So that only three 3 subplots are needed. And the Dongyan Mountain site should be plotted in Fig. 3 (or 5, 6).
7. Fig. 8: Observation or simulation?
8. Where are the seeding points or areas when you seed in 1km², 10km², and 100km²? These seeding points should be plotted. The seeding effects should also be shown in horizontal shadow figures, not just be plotted in lines as in Figs 9 and 10. And how much sea salt is seeded?
9. Line 240: Why do you say seeding in such large area (100 km²) at 500 m is “impractical and ineffective” but at the same time seeding in 100 km2 at 1300 m is “more suitable”? I think both of them are impractical.
10. Fig. 13, Why Praut increases in seed_500(100 km2) but Qr does not increase as shown in Fig.11 g, h.
11. Fig. 15, Why the units of dN/dlog(D) is %？
12. Line 261: Why do you think when the seeding area is larger than 64km2, the Shihmen region no longer has plenty of cloud water to transform to precipitation？ Is there any evidence supporting your conclusion？ Didn’t you say that seeding leads to an increase in Qc in 10 min?

The manuscript “ Evaluation of hygroscopic cloud seeding in warm rain process by a hybrid microphysics scheme on WRF model: a real case study” develops a hybrid cloud-seeding microphysics scheme and selects a case with optimal model performance and a typical weather condition in northern Taiwan to conduct a series of cloud-seeding sensitivity tests. The results show that seeding at in-cloud regions with an appropriate CCN size distribution can yield greater rainfall and that spreading the seeding agents over an area of 40–60 km² is the most efficient strategy to create a sufficient 15 precipitation rate. Overall, this is an interesting study that has the potential to advance our understanding of the evaluation of hygroscopic cloud seeding and may be of interest to ACP readers.

However, there are several issues to address before the paper is suitable to publication in ACP. Thus, I suggest minor revision before publication.

Major comments:

1. It is suggested that the horizontal resolution of Large eddy simulation should be below 100m, and the horizontal and vertical resolution below the PBLH should be nearly equal. Therefore, the LES resolution of this manuscript needs to be reconsidered, unless it is well justified.
2. As mentioned in the manuscript, the environment is crucial for cloud seeding. However, this manuscript only discusses saturation and does not delve into the discussion of the environment. Meanwhile, it only simulates a real case, so whether this conclusion has universality remains to be discussed.

Minor comments:

1. Lack of discussion and comparison with existing relevant research, some comparisons can be added in the introduction or discussion section to highlight the findings of this manuscript
2. L30: consider whether there are recent references supporting this phenomenon
3. L70: Suggest not adding references in the title
4. It is recommended to merge Figures 7a and b for comparison purposes
5. Figure 7: The horizontal axis does not appear to be a font
6. Figure 8: “Lontitude”“Longitude”
7. Figure 14: maintaining a unified time zone for the entire manuscript