If they know it needs to be fixed, nothing should constrain them. Or whomever is creating said constraints needs to move out of the way.
So you find a problem and you manage to get acknowledgement that it is, indeed, a defect. Or, just something that is awkward and really should be adjusted.
So the team has have a list of 10 things that need to be fixed, but they only have time to do 5 before things need to be packaged up.
Comes to simple project management. Scope, Schedule, Budget.
So you could say... pick the 5 that affect the most of our users/customers and do them.
So you could say.... there should be more time.
So you could say.... there should be more people on the team.
Probably all of that is true. What would you do if you were the QA/developer/whoever that was the actual "fixer" of the defect itself and you were told- there is no money for more people. There is no more time this release. If you cared a lot, you would probably do whatever you could to try to do as much as possible, but if you refuse to do the tasks that the team decides are priority, where does that leave you? Where does that leave the users? Trying to barrel through the system by pushing the limits to the extreme could get them stonewalled, or worse, fired. And then we users would be in a pickle, because the best people would be gone. The visionaries of tomorrow.
The people that are the "doers" now are often the "deciders" of tomorrow. They also work in the same building as a few of the "deciders", so theoretically they could get their attention now and again.
Some of the great autodesk people that pop into the mainstream DG care a LOT about the product and want to make it better, but they aren't the people that can say "No more subscription!" "No more annual release!" by proclaimation. They might be that person someday, or they might get the ear of that person someday soon.
The best you can do is alert them to the problems, give them real reasons why it is an implementation roadblock not only for you, but for regions of the US or Canada or the world or whatever.
As far as changing the corporate machine goes, I think you have a few options.
-Decide you like Civil 3D for what it is and just hang on for the ride
-Decide you like CIvil 3D for what it is and become a part of the constructive conversation for improvement
-Decide while Civil 3D is handy, it isn't worth it from a business perspective for your company, and you need to find another solution
If you decide to become part of the constructive conversation, there are a few angles. The technical angle through the DG and possibly creating your own blog or similar that shows off your highs and lows. This is one way to potentially get recognized as someone who is worth talking to from a feedback perspective. Attend Autodesk University if you can, and get involved in some of the breakout sessions. Join MyFeedback and help find bugs for the new release (knowing that you can't change much about the software, just helping find bugs makes their life easier so they will be more likely want your continued input).
There is also the business angle. Your reseller may not be terribly handy to you, but they do have access to an Autodesk Sales person and an Autodesk AE that covers their region. If you, politely and constructively, arrange through your reseller to have a meeting or conversation with these people, you can express your business/financial concerns to a receptive audience that can move things up the chain. It is a bit of a long climb, but I would say if you can be compelling that your situation applies to more than just your microniche, then things might happen. I would position it like this: I want to remain a customer, but this is what is keeping me from being able to do that.
