The reason for this request would be the same as that of the creators of the DSP parts in the installed libraries. They use the number scheme you mention which is what I am currently using(gnd1,gnd2,gnd3). I was just contemplating why the creators would not want to allow the same pin names.
By the way, so far I love the ease with which this product can be used. I have been using the more complicated packages in the past(altium, orcad, etc), and find that they take way too much of my time up in the schematic and board layout phase. Multisim and Utiliboard are very intuitive, and have a uncluttered interface.
good point I had the same problem and its annoying to have different pin names which represent the same functions like VCC or GND
When doing a board design the last thing you want is any ambiguity. These CAD systems only know to connect things up the way we design them. The fact that the pins are actually different physical pins on the parts requires rigorous treatment, and keeping the names unique ensures that. Please keep it this way, and just give in to labeling them GND1, GND2, ...
I personally name them GND6, GND11, ... with the number being the actual physical pin number. Makes life easier in schematic, layout and board debug worlds.
--------\By the way, so far I love the ease with which this product can be used. I have been using the more complicated packages in the past(altium, orcad, etc), and find that they take way too much of my time up in the schematic and board layout phase. Multisim and Utiliboard are very intuitive, and have a uncluttered interface. \
I totally agree. I have many customers moving to Altium and I just hate it when they want a design done in Altium. It's so much more troubelsome than MS/UB.
On the other hand MS & UB are underpowered to handle large designs, so often you cannot fault the need to use the other tools. They do have many more sophisticated features than MS/UB, but that's probably a big reason they are more painful to use.
As for Altium though, the project workspace is the most NOT intuitive thing I have ever used. :-(. Habitual Altium users don't appreciate this as much as more seldom users though.
I hate having gnd1, gnd2 etc, seems silly to me when I first had to do this with a part which had a dozen grounds. Maybe make this optional to please everyone.
If I don't want to show the physical pinning I just put one pin. Then map all the footprint pins to that symbol pin in the symbol pin mapping.
There are far more important features I wish NI would work on than this.
An intersting topic...
I als o use the GND1, GND2 etc solution, it seems the best way not to forget any pin at all.
and the pin mapping towards the footprint is very simple, the usually fit automatically, no more looking in the datasheet after you created the symbol.
this is very important when you make symbols that have over 100 pins!
Concerning Altium, I had a two day course, and you can't beleive how complex it is compared to Ultiboard.
way too many settings etc...
but the most important is the routing, and even that is painfully slow,
just compare adding a via in Ultiboard and Altium...
or try a DRC check, in Ultiboard, a full netlist and DRC check takes less than a second.
In altium you have to start filling a table before the DRC check even starts.... and even then it is slow...
In the end, my doctor told me not to use Altium anymore....