Or_i return end if for all two-hop-neighbor-via-one-hop-neighbor-i j do if destination_address == two_hop_neighbor_j then send packet to one_hop_neighbor_i return finish if finish for end for calculate FCp / calculating FC for myself/ for all one-hop-neighbor i do calculate FCi for all two-hop-neighbor-via-one-hop-neighbor-i j do calculate FCij calculate FCp / calculating FC from for two-hop-neighbor j along with the corresponding one-hop-neighbor i/ finish for finish for temp_FC = 0 for all FC p do if temp_FC FCp then temp_FC = FCp nest_custodian = address_of_FCp finish if end for if my_address == address_of_FCp then queue packet until Pinterval else send packet to address_of_FCp finish if5. Performance Evaluation Network Simulator 3.26 was applied to evaluate the proposed routing protocol. The UAVs started in the southwest corner from the reconnaissance region. All experiments have been repeated 30 occasions to get reasonable statistical self-assurance. The key simulation parameters are presented in Table 2. Additionally, we compared the performance of LECAR with some existing routing protocols: Spray and Wait [12] as a DTN-based routing protocol and LAROD-LoDiS [29] and GPSR [30] as hybrid routing protocols. We also implemented a modified version of GPSR so that the UAVs can store the packets within the buffer till theySensors 2021, 21,13 oflocate a suitable custodian. We call this protocol GPSR-Q. Additionally, we implemented a modified version of LECAR and referred to as location estimation-based routing (LER). The LER has each of the functionality of LECAR, except it does not take into consideration the buffer occupancy for deciding on the custodian.Table 2. Crucial parameters in the simulation experiments in Network Simulator three.26. Parameter Name Observation location Scan location for every single UAV UAV speed Transmission variety Wireless common Number of UAVs Quantity of targets Simulation time Packet size Parameter Value ten,000m 10,000 m 400m 400 m 550 m/s 800 m 802.11 b 50 00 14 of 21 60 min 524 KBSensors 2021, 21, x FOR PEER REVIEWWe compared LECAR with all the viewed as routing protocols with regards to the packet We compared LECAR with all the regarded as routing protocols with regards to the packet delivery ratio, hop count per packet, number of copies per packet, number of transmis delivery ratio, hop count per packet, quantity of copies per packet, quantity of transmissions sions per packet, per packet, total total overhead, and total consumed energy. For all per packet, delay delay per packet, overhead, and total consumed power. For all situations, we cases, we compared two buffer sizes: 25 and 50 MB. Each UAV generated 1 MB of Wiskostatin medchemexpress information compared two buffer sizes: 25 and 50 MB. Every single UAV generated 1 MB of information packets per packets per Niacin-13C6 medchemexpress minute throughout the experiment.minute through the experiment.5.1. Efficiency Evaluation for the Packet Delivery Ratio five.1. Efficiency Evaluation for the Packet Delivery Ratio From Figure 11, LECAR achieves the highest packet delivery ratio compared with From Figure 11, LECAR achieves the highest packet delivery ratio compared together with the the regarded routing protocols. The LER would be the secondhighest performer because it fol thought of routing protocols. The LER is definitely the second-highest performer since it follows lows the same procedure as LECAR except for the buffer occupancy consideration. We the identical process as LECAR except for the buffer occupancy consideration. We believe believe that a lack of awareness of congestion leads to a efficiency decline in LER com that a lack of awareness of cong.