Shape the future of FME with your ideas
Open ideas have been reviewed by our Product Management and are open for commenting and voting.
I've noticed that the Safe Software YouTube channel has recently started publishing more short tips, tricks, and workflow videos, which is great to see. I really appreciate the effort to create more educational content for the FME community.I do have a few suggestions that I think could make these videos even more engaging and effective.1. Audio qualityThe biggest issue, in my opinion, is the sound quality. It often sounds like it was recorded with a fairly basic microphone and includes noticeable background noise. Since audio quality has a huge impact on viewer retention, investing in a better microphone, cleaner recording setup, or basic audio post-processing would make a significant difference.2. Editing and pacingMany videos feel longer than necessary. Tips that could often be explained in 30–60 seconds are sometimes stretched to 3–5 minutes. Today's audiences are used to concise, information-dense content, so tighter editing and faster pacing would likely make the videos more useful and easier to watch.3. Overall production qualityThe videos would also benefit from a more polished production style. A simple screen recording is useful, but adding zoom-ins, highlights, annotations, quick cuts, clearer structure, or occasional graphics would help viewers focus on the key points.If video production is not a primary focus for the internal team, it might be worth collaborating with someone who specializes in educational video production, YouTube content, or short-form technical content. Even a small improvement in production quality could make the videos feel more professional and help present FME in the best possible light.The technical content itself is valuable. I simply think that better audio, tighter editing, faster pacing, and a more polished presentation would help these videos reach a wider audience and make them more enjoyable to watch.Thanks again for creating more content for the FME community. I hope you'll continue publishing more videos.
The FME ArcGIS Online writer should expose a time zone setting that allows you to set the time zone of your data when publishing or appending data. By default, ArcGIS Online assumes all data is stored in UTC but when publishing directly to ArcGIS Online through the UI or using the ArcGIS Python API the time zone can be set to the time zone of your data. This setting in the writer would allow dates to be published and updated accurately.
The Readers now give out more warnings than before, it’s becoming an issue for some when monitoring from FME Flow or when someone who isn’t a daily FME user needs to run a workflow.A way to tone down those types of warning would be a great addition, because sometime the warnings are actually meaningfull and we don’t want to have look at all the jobs or remember that X numbers of warning for this specific workspace are meaningless. Two examples are these: Spatial and Non Spatial Reader/Writer got merged together, if you don’t have a spatial component it warns you about it each time, but it’s useless.Oracle Reader: Username and Password in lower case cause a warning that can be interpretted as an error (copied the error from an older post)
In the current situation + Finland & Sweden joining NATO there is more demand to support Nato Vector Graphics (NVG) -format. Just read a RFP where it’s a must and waiting for more similar RFP’s to come. It’s not just the military people who ask for it, it’s also e.g. border control and who ever is providing services for them.
When writing PDF it would be good if I could choose to write PDF/A version of the files. PDF/A is an ISO standard specialized for the digital preservation of electronic documents and in several cases it's a requirement when delivering PDF-files to a customer.
Please vote for this format if you think it should be in FME: https://www.geonovum.nl/uploads/documents/220405-JSON-FG.pdf https://docs.ogc.org/DRAFTS/21-045.html
The 'NoFeaturesTester' custom transformer currently out on FME Hub is powerful. However, we're getting pushback from IT from using it in our production workspaces in FME Server. We've benchmarked their work-arounds, and it slows down the workspace significantly (2 seconds with NFT vs. 2.5 minutes with their suggested alternatives). My idea: Harden this transformer and turn into a standard transformer.
Currently the Esri ArcGIS Server Feature Service transformer does offer a handful of authentication types, but non of them offers the use of a web connection.It would be so easy...
I'm interested in reading the new Esri Utility Network.I wonder if others are? What systems are you going to? What is most important to you?Maybe writing is more your thing? Vote and give feedback for writing the Esri Utility Network here.Note: The reason for a new format is as a result of the Utility Network being completely Services-based. As such, the underlying Geodatabase is inaccessible apart from accessing it via the Feature Service.
Differentiation of user created web services from web services template that come out of the box or from newly insatalled FME Hub packages would be nice and make it easier for users to manage their own web services.
The web connection/webservice features have been around for a few years and it needs some improvement in the UX, especially to help new users. Here’s a few suggestions:1. once a web service is created by a user, services, templates and connections are all mixed up in the drop downs or that long list of templates and web services. Some type of separation or categories between user created services from web services templates either on the long list in FME options or the drop downs in the connectors.2. The Add Web Connection drop down from the transformers is confusing to new users, when the web connection is not a simple token or key or the web service is not created yet. 3. On the MCP Caller (Beta) web connection from FME Options, I have to type the MCP URL and API key three times before I can use it. Once the URL is configured from the template ans applied. Once applied, the URL should persist in the drop down when I Test the web service and create with Add my Web Connection.
It would be super nice if I can compress 3D Tiles data (glTF) with DRACO (https://google.github.io/draco/). File sizes get super small and rendering will be faster. I want to have an option in the 3D Tiles writer!
It would be great to have for ZIP files a Reader similar to the "Directory and file pathnames" one, so you could see the contents of a ZIP file without opening it. For doing so now I had to use the Python zipfile library.
add webservice definitions to FME Flow roles, so we can control who can access them, it seems if you use FME Flow as connection storage for FME Form, connections are controlled by roles, but anyone can see and use any webservice definition. If I am wrong about this, then this idea can be dropped.
Current situation: FME Flow’s Git integration relies on broad‑scope personal access tokens, which many security policies prohibit.Why fine‑grained: Fine‑grained PATs were created to align access with what really matters—specific repositories, operations, and lifetimes—enforcing least‑privilege and reducing risk. This will make it easier to implement version control because current organizations like ours don’t allow broad scope.Request: Add native support for GitHub fine‑grained PATs in FME Flow version control so teams can adopt it while meeting modern security policies.
It would be nice if FME Flow could be set up to communicate with other servers like Autodesk Construction Cloud and Sharepoint using OAuth2- client_credentials. Currently most integrations are based on user authentication which requires users to validate their password once in a while.It could be documentation is not complete for these types of flows or packages are not yet prepared for this. But every integration documentation should have a chapter: how to integrate the client_credentials flow.
In many organizations, FME Flow is managed centrally and engine resources are shared across different teams or departments. However, FME Flow currently does not offer any permission control on engine queues.At the moment, when a user/author has access to view queues, they can see all queues defined on the FME Flow instance. This can be problematic in environments where engine usage needs to be compartmentalized. Example use caseThe IT department is allowed to use 2 specific engines/queues.The GIS team is allowed to use 3 different engines/queues.However, because queues are not permission-restricted, any user can select any queue when creating schedules, automations, or running workspaces if they have access to the advanced part. Suggested ImprovementAdd the ability to control which engine queues a user or role can see and use.This would allow administrators to:Restrict access to specific queues based on user roles or groups. Prevent users from unintentionally using engines they are not supposed to access. Improve resource isolation and governance in multi-team or multi-department FME Flow environments.
For Security in FME Server , it would be nice to include job queues as items that can be associated to roles. For those of us running distributed engines, this would allow us to control what jobs can go to what engines by FME server role, and we could set up engines with different service accounts, so that they would have different permission on things such as the enterprise file system.
I’m interested in using FME Flow for Connection Storage in FME Workbench.We have a single FME Flow instance that does not have redundancy. I’m concerned that if Flow is unavailable, that FME Workbench will effectively also be rendered unusable if I use Flow for connection storage, based on what I’ve read in the documentation.Further, FME Form provides me a sort of redundancy at the moment - if Flow is unavailable or if the engines are consumed, I can run my processes locally, as a last resort. In my understanding, moving my connections to Flow would remove this redundancy and leave me more vulnerable to network/infrastructure/system issues.If the above is true, would it be possible to maintain a local cache of connections, similar to the default Personal Database Connection Storage, where it prompts for and perhaps even requires connection and syncing to Flow, but has some sort of fail-back mechanism in the event of failure?I could keep an export of connections locally, or a Shared Database copy, but this will go stale and defeats the purpose of the FME Flow option, I imagine.Thanks for any thoughts or corrections on the above.
Following a helpful and enlightening conversation with some Safe staffers I learned that Safe is working on some upgrades to the FME software update process and I was encouraged to add my thoughts as an Idea. I’m sure other feedback would be welcome as well!In our case, we have a client who is restricted to an older Esri software version due to various dependencies but this means they are now also restricted to a maximum FME version of 2025.2.x as 2026.x does not support their older Esri software.It would be a significant help if the FME upgrade process could be made more modular so that, for example, core functionality (e.g. transformers, reprojection, etc.) could be updated while older readers/writers could be retained for backwards compatibility.Safe have started down this path with the concept of packages for certain functionality but it would be great if this could be extended to provide even more flexibility in the upgrade process.Upvote and add a comment if you have specific use cases which would be helpful for you!
There’s various suggestions out there explaining how to get the number of features written during an automation:https://support.safe.com/hc/en-us/articles/25407494315789-FME-Flow-Get-the-Count-of-Features-Written-in-an-Automation However, these processes seem a bit complicated given that the count exists in the log for the workspace. Maybe I am wrong and it would be very complicated to access this number.For the “Run a Workspace” action, I would like to have “Total Features Written” included within Output Attribute → Success → Event Attribute:This would allow it to be utilized in downstream actions such as emailing.Also, you would be able to use it within custom attributes and that would eliminate the need for additional workspaces, automation writers, split-merge blocks and http requests.
In recent security audit, one of the concerns was with the FME Server log-in.As there is no limit on the amount of retries, the login can be brute-forced.Please add a toggle and a parameter for limited login-retries, just like 'Password Policy' in the system configuration.Perhaps also adjust the system-event to only trigger after a set number of attempts, and have the IP-address of the source as one of the keys.Kind regards,Martin
The current web interface for managing resources does not allow for renaming files and folders. On FME Server you generally will have other access to the filesystem (at least an admin would have), but on FME Cloud this is not the case and renaming a file would mean removing it and re-uploading it under a different name. So an option to rename files and folders through the resources interface would be very useful.
I have some workspaces that are large and have too many lists/tables etc. These will not run with Feature Caching enabled - as they will use 20+ hours. Without it, its done in less than 1 hour. Other workspaces I like to have Feature Caching enabled, and I easily forget to switch back.Make a parameter - similar to Rejected Feature Handling - that is "per workspace". For instance:Feature Caching: Enabled / disabled
In-depth courses for all FME skill levels.
Explore our extensive collection of how-to guides and tutorials.
Log an issue with us. Our support team is ready to help.
