gameObject.SetActive() compared with transform.Rotate()

Unity Engine
1

I’m new to C# and Unity. Trying to understand why if I write a script to tell the gameObject that the script is attached to SetActive(false), I use gameObject.SetActive(false). But if I want to rotate the gameObject that the script is attached to, I don’t need to say “gameObject”, I simply say this.transform.Rotate() or even transform.Rotate().

To put it another way, why does transform seem to be built into all scripts automatically, but SetActive isn’t, I have to reference the gameObject first?

Sorry if I’m not making any sense.

2

Unity’s component architecture

Terminology primer for assets:

1 Like
3

transform and gameObject are properties on anything that derives from Component. MonoBehaviour derives from Component, so you get access to those properties.

So, I wouldn’t say that anything is inconsistent here. If you want to turn off an object, you do gameObject.SetActive(false);. If you want to rotate the object that a component is attached to, you do transform.rotation = whatever;

You can’t just say SetActive(false); because you can’t set a Component to be active/inactive! You can enable/disable a Behaviour (not all components are behaviours!), sure, but that’s a completely different thing.

I think the part you’re mixed up on is that transform isn’t being accessed through gameObject – it’s directly available to any Component.

Also, aside: this is only strictly necessary if you need to distinguish between a field and a local variable, like this:

public class Whatever {
  public int foo;
 
  public void ReticulateSplines(int foo) {
    this.foo = foo * 2;
  }
}
3 Likes
4

Teeny tiny micro-quibble… Components do not have the .enabled field, that comes in on Behaviours. :slight_smile:

That’s why you cannot disable a Rigidbody; it has no .enabled field because it is a Component: it bypasses the Behaviour side of the family tree.

1 Like
5

Ah, good point. I remember getting very confused by this at first.

1 Like
6

What’s even sillier is that there is no checkbox in the Inspector to control .enabled until you provide a Start() method or some other subtle hints. But it’s there.

7

Exactly. Why is that? Is it just because it’s just used so much, it just made sense to make it easier to use?

8

Yeah, I could imagine a world where you have to do it like this:

gameObject.transform.position += Vector3.up;

It’s just more convenient this way. Anything attached an object can directly use the transform for that object.

1 Like