Could someone help me child this to the object calling this script

Hi
I ha a GO named cubity and this script on it to instantiate a object from the resources folder that i would like to be then a child of cubity..

Code (CSharp):

1. using System.Collections;
2. using System.Collections.Generic;
3. using UnityEngine;
4.  
5. public class sm : MonoBehaviour {
6.  
7.     GameObject grass;
8.  
9.     void Start(){
10.      grass = (Resources.Load("sm", typeof(GameObject))) as GameObject;
11.  
12.         }
13.  
14.     void OnBecameVisible (){
15.         Instantiate (grass, transform.position, transform.rotation);//as a child of cubity
16.     }
17.  
18.  
19.  

 

Hi tawdry,

If you hover over the word "Instantiate" in your script, you can follow that link. If you then select the top link (Object.Instantiate), it will take you to this help page.

In your call to Instantiate you have already used "transform.position, transform.rotation". Can you see anything in the aforementioned help page that could allow you to parent the new object to the script's owner?

 

this is what i would do to set Cubity as a child

Code (CSharp):

1. void OnBecameVisible (){
2.         GameObject GO = Instantiate (grass, transform.position, transform.rotation) as GameObject;//as a child of cubity
3.         GO.transform.parent = this.gameObject.transform;
4.     }

 

Afraid i'm still stuck. The instantiate is a prefab made up of 10 other prefabs if that is important?
I Tried just throwing the word parent at everything but didnt make any difference.
Found this line of code
grass.transform.parent = gameObject.transform; but it returns the below error.

Setting the parent of a transform which resides in a prefab is disabled to prevent data corruption.
UnityEngine.Transform:set_parent(Transform)
sm:OnBecameVisible() (at Assets/Resources/sm.cs:19)

Code (CSharp):

1. using System.Collections;
2. using System.Collections.Generic;
3. using UnityEngine;
4.  
5. public class sm : MonoBehaviour {
6.  
7.     GameObject grass;
8. //    Vector3 off;
9.  
10.  
11.     void Start(){
12.      grass = (Resources.Load("sm", typeof(GameObject))) as GameObject;
13.  
14.         }
15.  
16.     void OnBecameVisible (){
17.         //Instantiate (grass , transform.position, transform.rotation);
18.         Instantiate(grass, transform.parent.position,transform.parent.rotation);//this does the same as the coomented out line above it
19.         grass.transform.parent = gameObject.transform;//this returns that error
20.         //this.enabled=!this.enabled;//this is able to enable the script even when its been disabled?
21.     }
22. }
23.  
24.  

 

try this

Code (CSharp):

1. void OnBecameVisible (){
2.         //Instantiate (grass , transform.position, transform.rotation);
3.         Instantiate(grass, transform.parent.position,transform.parent.rotation,this.gameObject.transform);
4.        
5.         //grass.transform.parent = gameObject.transform;//this returns that error
6.         //this.enabled=!this.enabled;//this is able to enable the script even when its been disabled?
7.     }

 

Sweet thx Johne working now

 

For future reference, you could have used the return value of instantiate to hold a variable to the instance.

In this case, setting it in the method is great, but I only point this out to show the issue. Since your 'grass' had only referenced the loaded resource, and not the newly created instance (from instantiate).

 

Hi Methos
My first language is english but i still hardly ever understand what you are saying. Your explanations are usually way beyond my level of intelligence.Many Kudos for all the assistance you do give on these forums though.

 

The issue methos5k is indicating is with this line :

Code (CSharp):

1. grass = (Resources.Load("sm", typeof(GameObject))) as GameObject;

It sets grass to point to the loaded resource. Then later, the following line neither records the new game object, nor parents it to anything.

Code (CSharp):

1. Instantiate(grass, transform.parent.position,transform.parent.rotation);

Maybe something like this is what you want?

Code (CSharp):

1. public class sm : MonoBehaviour
2. {
3.     void Start()
4.     {
5.         // This will create the object and parent it to us.
6.         // It will therefore have our position and rotation.
7.         grass = Instantiate(
8.               Resources.Load<GameObject>("sm")
9.             , transform );
10.     }
11.  
12.     void OnBecameInvisible()
13.     {
14.         grass.SetActive(false);
15.     }
16.  
17.     void OnBecameVisible()
18.     {
19.         grass.SetActive(true);
20.     }
21.  
22.     GameObject grass;
23. }

However, for this to work (i.e. the '(in)visible' methods), the game object containing this script must have a renderer - even if it is not rendering anything.

 

Ah yes that line was commented out here is the final code.i will try out your code and compare performance ivs the instantiate and destroy route im trying.

Code (CSharp):

1. using System.Collections;
2. using System.Collections.Generic;
3. using UnityEngine;
4.  
5. public class sm : MonoBehaviour {
6.  
7.     GameObject grass;
8.  
9.     void Start(){
10.      grass = (Resources.Load("sm", typeof(GameObject))) as GameObject;
11.  
12.     }
13.  
14.             void OnBecameVisible (){
15.            
16.             Instantiate(grass, transform.parent.position,transform.parent.rotation,this.gameObject.transform);
17.  
18.         }
19.                 }
20.  
21.  

 

Sorry for the confusion I try to keep things as easy to understand as I can.

 

Strangely the set active on off and instantiate/destroy had similar performance.Your code gave me an idea what if i unenable and parent the grass together as they become invisible till i say have 10 objects then destroy instead of destroying 1 at a time that might increase fps?Another option would be to implement a pooling system with your code but my biggest concern is memory so not sure if i want to maintain a massive pool of these objects.

 

It is not uncommon to face a trade-off between efficiency of resource use and efficiency of performance. Generally accepted guidance here is to:

1. Write the code as simply as you can.
2. Make sure it works and does what you want.
3. Now check, is it running slowly at all.
4. If so, use the profiler to find out where and why.
5. Now, and only now, look to make the 'slow' code faster. Bear in mind that making code more optimised often means making the code harder to follow. That is why this step is generally best left til last.