## 4 Discussion and Conclusions
Moreover, in the analysis of the NW-SE vertical cross-sections through the TLC eye, the ECMWF-based simulations showed large overestimations of the simulated reflectivity at low and middle levels at the northwestern eyewall and main spiraling rainband, evidencing the presence of convective cores where the observations detected only stratiform rain; this could explain why these simulations triggered stronger medicanes (i.e., lower minimum surface pressures) compared to their GFS-based counterparts. Nevertheless, most simulations failed to satisfactorily predict the northeastern quadrant of the eyewall, but allsucceeded with the southwestern part. This was the most active area, as inferred from the observations, which exhibited some intense convective activity at low to middle levels. It is known that the retrieval of the integrated frozen hydrometeor content from the DPR data is less reliable than that of rainwater; therefore, the analysis focused mainly on the surface rain rate and integrated rainwater content. The ECMWF-based simulations produced the most intense medicane while exhibiting substantially higher amounts of columnar precipitating ice (snow and graupel) than the GFS-based experiments, which further supports the idea that they promoted more vigorous vertical ascent and, therefore, lower surface pressures. In terms of the integrated rainwater, the ECMWF-based simulations showed values of similar magnitude to the observations, while the GFS-based experiments underestimated them. The analysis of the ocean surface wind field from the ASCAT scatterometer overpass at 7:11 p.m. UTC 17 September revealed the best agreement among all the variables examined. All simulations exhibited great skill in surface wind intensity and organization, and they all adequately captured the spatial location of the TLC, despite a light shift to the west with respect to the observed position of the system. The experiments with ECMWF data clearly outperformed those with GFS data due to incurring less overestimation of the maximum wind speeds located in the southwestern quadrant of the eyewall. Altogether, these results highlighted how the model was a bit more sensitive to the nature of the IBCs (spatial resolution and other dynamical and physical differences) than to the choice of microphysics parameterization scheme for this case of mature phase of the TLC Ianos. The higher spatial resolution (among other differences) of the ECMWF IBCs had a remarkable impact on the better definition of the main TLC's mesoscale features such as the low-level vortex, the creation of a consistent eyewall, and the positioning of the main and outer rainbands, which resulted in improved surface rain rate forecasts. At the same time, the simulations with the coarser IBCs turned out to be more skillful only at predicting a more realistic minimum surface pressure, but at the expense of a less accurate surface rain rate forecast because of their inappropriate characterization of the TLC's major mesoscale features. We tested four microphysics schemes, all of which include the prognosis of the mass mixing ratios of the three main ice categories (i.e., ice, snow, and graupel). Only one was single-moment (WSM6), while the others were double-moment in varying degrees: the WDM6 included the number concentration prognosis for warm-rain processes (cloud and rainwater) only, the Thompson included the number concentration for rain and ice, and the Morrison scheme included that for rain and ice, snow, and graupel. As shown, the schemes that generally performed the best in the different fields analyzed were the Thompson and Morrison, especially in terms of the relative positioning and development of the primary mesoscale structures of the TLC such as the eyewall and main spiraling rainbands. This highlights, therefore, the important role of the accurate representation of the cloud ice processes in the microphysical parameterization for the correct forecast of Mediterranean TLCs.