Posted without readable text

Channel
Всё про IFC
@ifc_ru
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Stars · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
1,265subscribers
+1 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 1,000–3,162.
Register entry
| Telegram ID | -1002024912648 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @ifc_ru |
| Created | 23 December 2023 — measured — cross-checked against a third-party dataset (ext.tg_channel) |
| First recorded | 7 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 11 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 3 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 2 times, most recently 11 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/ifc_ru |
Growth
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 8 Aug 2026, 07:56 | 1,265 | +1 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 22:48 | 1,264 | no change |
| 7 Aug 2026, 12:30 | 1,264 | first reading |
Engagement
17 posts held, back to 21 November 2025 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 1 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
- ERR · 30 days
- —
- no view readings in window
- Avg views / post
- —
- no view readings
- Reaction rate
- —
- this channel exposes no reaction counts
- Posts in window
- 1
- of 17 held
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 25 July 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 17 (21 November 2025 – 25 July 2026) |
| Views total | — |
| Reactions total | — |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 7 Aug 2026, 22:48 UTC |
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
Reaction mix
239 reactions across 13 posts, in 15 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 37.2% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🔥 | 89 | 37.2% | |
| 👍 | 85 | 35.6% | |
| ❤ | 31 | 13.0% | |
| 🎄 | 10 | 4.18% | |
| custom 5289694937367980517 | 6 | 2.51% | |
| 👨💻 | 5 | 2.09% | |
| 😢 | 3 | 1.26% | |
| ⚡ | 2 | 0.837% | |
| 🤯 | 2 | 0.837% | |
| 👎 | 1 | 0.418% | |
| 👏 | 1 | 0.418% | |
| 💯 | 1 | 0.418% | |
| 😁 | 1 | 0.418% | |
| 🤔 | 1 | 0.418% | |
| 🤗 | 1 | 0.418% |
Custom emoji. One row above is a Telegram custom emoji, which the public preview renders as an element carrying only a numeric id — no character, and no image we can reach. The id is printed as-is rather than substituted with a look-alike glyph, because a stand-in would be our invention showing where a measurement should be. The count beside it isTelegram’s.
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 13 of the 17 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 239reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 17 most recent posts we hold, published 21 November 2025 to 25 July 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
Telegram Stars
- Stars received
- 11
- across the posts below
- Posts paid on
- 2
- of 15 we hold a reading for · 13%
- Most on one post
- 10
- single highest reading
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @ifc_ru. Telegram publishes the count on the public post preview alongside ordinary reactions, and this register reads it there. It is the only figure on this site that measures money moving rather than attention.
Stars are not reactions, and the two are never added. They are rendered in the same strip on Telegram and counted in the same shape, but one is a tap and the other is a purchase. The reaction totals and the engagement rate elsewhere on this page exclude every figure in this section, and no rate here is computed against a reaction count.
This is not revenue, and we publish no currency figure. What a Star costs a reader and what it pays a channel are different numbers, Telegram takes a share we cannot observe, and the terms have changed. Converting a Star count into money would be an estimate dressed as a measurement, so the count is where we stop.
Counted over the 17 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 21 November 2025 to 25 July 2026. Star counts above 1,000 reach us in Telegram’s short form and carry the same three-significant-figure rounding as everything else on this page.
Recent posts
Требования к ЦИМ в формате IDS от Мособлэкспертизы Мособлэкспертиза разработала новую редакцию требований к ЦИМ, в том числе в формате IDS: - Требования к ЦИМ автомобильных дорог и улично-дорожной сети. - Требования к ЦИМ наружных инженерных сетей. - Требования к ЦИМ производственным и непроизводственным ОКС. > СКАЧАТЬ < @IFC_ru @IFC_club
🔥7👍3👨💻1
А вот интересное: из вот этого видео: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksz-9552gKY (канал крайне рекомендую, автор использует FreeCAD в около-IFC темах) узнал про вот этот визуальный редактор IDS: https://www.idsedit.com/ Пара но: • Ссылка открылась только из-под ВПН; • Как и бывает с подобными визуальными редакторами, с более-менее серьёзной спецификацией (IDS СПб ГАУ ЦГЭ (Конструктивные решения).ids, например) уже н…
О методическом пособии по созданию цифровых требований: как исправить проблемы (часть 2/2) Попробуем предложить решения проблемы. Важность создания методики мы не будем отрицать, но надо подумать над интеграционным фундаментом, когда бы нас понимали все, а не только в рамках данной методики. Порассуждаем над конкретными шагами, как исправить ситуацию: 🛑 Устранить семантический разрыв. Не вводить новый формат, а на…
👍11❤1🤯1
О методическом пособии по созданию цифровых требований (часть 1/2) "НИЦ ЦПС" по заказу ФАУ "ФЦС" разработал методическое пособие по созданию цифровых требований для проверки ЦИМ. Мы не можем пройти мимо этого документа, так как направляли в ФАУ "ФЦС" наши комментарии по нему, но они остались без ответа. Проанализируем документ и обозначим некоторые вопросы. Сразу обозначим, что создавать формат для требований без п…
👍10😢3🤯1
Коллизии. Новый взгляд? (Дополнение) Над предложенным выше делением коллизий еще стоить поработать, но здесь важен сам подход. Кстати, он принципиально отличается от того, что предлагается в ЕСИМ, где дефекты подразделяются на: 🔴 устранимые и неустранимые (по возможности исправления); 🔴 скрытые и явные (по вероятности/сложности обнаружения); 🔴 критические и некритические (по приоритету). Подход ЕСИМ лежит в другой…
👍9👨💻3
File, posted without a caption
🔥13👍1
Коллизии. Новый взгляд? Продолжаем тему коллизий. Сегодня сложилось обывательское убеждение, что «проверка на коллизии» - это про геометрические пересечения. А во времена BIM-стандартов от вендоров предлагалось что-то странное: жесткие коллизии, мягкие, газообразные… Это аналогично 4D, 5D, 6D, 7D. Проблема в том, что пока не посмотришь, что это значит, не поймешь, о чем речь. В результате - недопонимание и проблемы…
👍11❤3👨💻1🤔1
Всё про IFC pinned «СОДЕРЖАНИЕ 2026 (обновляется) 1. Коллизии. Новый взгляд? + иерархия коллизий 2. Коллизии. Новый взгляд? Дополнение. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Подкасты "BIM-среда" на Youtube 📹 | Rutube 📺 👥 @IFC_ru 👥 @IFC_club»
СОДЕРЖАНИЕ 2026 (обновляется) 1. Коллизии. Новый взгляд? + иерархия коллизий 2. Коллизии. Новый взгляд? Дополнение. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Подкасты "BIM-среда" на Youtube 📹 | Rutube 📺 👥 @IFC_ru 👥 @IFC_club
СОДЕРЖАНИЕ 2025 1. Проблемы излишней стандартизации имен файлов моделей 2. "Формат RVT - это де-факто стандарт отрасли" 3. Bonsai - еще не САПР, но больше, чем САПР 4. Как посмотреть структуру IFC-файла 5. DeepSeek и IFC. Пример запроса 6. Как подружить элементы и документы в IFC 7. Проверка IFC моделей по требованиям IDS (статья) 8. Связи BIM-стандартов ISO 9. Тестируем выгрузку стен из Revit 10. Обзор библиотек дл…
🔥13❤3👍2💯1
Предновогодний прогон всех постов канала через ИИ (+статистика от TGStat) В дополнение к статистике от ТGStat пропустили через ИИ все посты нашего канала. И вот что он сказал: В лидерах по темам в 2025 году оказались: 1. Цифровые требования (IDS) и их развитие – 14 постов 2. Критика и разбор нормативных документов – 11 постов и упоминаний 3. Разбор ТЗ на ЦИМ (серия постов) – 10 постов и упоминаний 4. Инструменты дл…
🎄10custom 52896949373679805174❤2🤗1
Showing the 12 most recent of 17 posts we hold for @ifc_ru. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
Stars beside a post are paid reactions — Telegram Stars, bought with money and spent on that post. They are a different unit from reactions and are never added to them, here or anywhere else on this page.
Forward network
Republishes
Channels on the register whose posts this channel has forwarded.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Mentions
Names
Channels on the register whose handles appear in this channel's posts.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
Cite this entry
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 8 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Всё про IFC” (@ifc_ru), 1,265 subscribers as measured 8 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/ifc_ru.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.