Who this page is for
If you currently use aSc Timetables — or have used it on a previous evaluation — and you are looking at modern alternatives, this page is for you. It is a fair comparison, not a takedown. aSc has been a reliable generator for many schools for years; this is about where its workflow patterns start to limit planning-led schools.
The short version: aSc is generation-first. Smootables is planning-first. The two product visions differ in where the data lives, when validation happens, and how planners stay in control.
Where aSc still fits, where it limits planning-first schools
Where aSc still fits
Schools with a stable class-based timetable, a planner comfortable with traditional settings dialogs, and a working publication and substitution flow through the EduPage ecosystem.
aSc's automatic generator is well known, the input model is familiar to planners with timetabling backgrounds, and the price point is competitive.
Where it limits planning-first schools
Year-level planning, workload, and individual pathways live outside the core model. Mixed cohorts, exemptions, and workplace learning often require spreadsheet workarounds. AI assistance is not a native part of the workflow.
For vocational and career colleges, the gap between 'the generator works' and 'the plan is feasible' is where most of the planner time goes.
How Smootables is different
Smootables shares the same idea — solver-based generation with hard and soft constraints — but starts earlier in the lifecycle. The planning model holds academic years, terms, periods, courses, modules, pathways, workload, and individual student assignments. Generation runs against that model, so the validation step that catches infeasibility happens before the solve, not after.
Editing is modern: drag-and-drop, swap, split, pin and regenerate, slot insight before a drop, branches, undo, and audit logs. The planner AI assistant runs validated commands against the same model — it does not bypass hard constraints or change tenant data outside its scope.
Comparison on the dimensions that usually decide it
| Dimension | aSc Timetables | Smootables |
|---|---|---|
| Workflow | Generation-first | Planning-first |
| Year and period planning | Limited; usually held outside the tool | First-class part of the model |
| Individual pathways and exemptions | Class-first; pathway workarounds typical | Group, individual, and per-placement exemption support |
| Pre-solve validation | Conflict checks during generation | Validation before generation, with infeasibility reports |
| Workload visibility | Tied to generated timetable | Available throughout planning |
| AI workflows | Not AI-native | Built in with validated commands and audit logs |
| Editing | Traditional manual adjustment patterns | Drag/drop, pin/regenerate, slot insight, branches, undo |
| Publication and substitutions | Strong via the EduPage ecosystem | Built into the same workspace; integrations available |
Evaluation checklist when comparing the two
When deciding whether Smootables is the right replacement, these are the scenarios where the planning-first model usually shows the biggest difference:
- Modeling individual pathways and exemptions without a parallel spreadsheet
- Running pre-generation validation on a known-tight period
- Comparing scenarios with timetable branches instead of overwriting drafts
- Asking the planner AI to balance a constraint and reviewing the proposed change before applying
- Publishing and substituting from the same workspace where planning happens
Migration path from aSc
- Export your current model from aSc (courses, teachers, rooms, groups, constraints).
- Import the model into Smootables using structured import with column mapping, or AI-assisted extraction for older exports.
- Validate the model in Smootables. Pre-solve validation will surface mismatches that are easier to resolve before scheduling.
- Run one period in parallel. Keep aSc as the published source of truth while you verify the Smootables result.
- Switch publication for one scope (campus, program, or period) once the parallel run looks correct.
- Roll out to the rest of the school in subsequent cycles. EduPage-style substitution can be replaced by the substitution workflow in Smootables or kept alongside it during transition.
Questions schools ask when comparing aSc and Smootables
Is Smootables a direct replacement?
It can be. It replaces the planning, generation, editing, and publication steps. Schools using EduPage features alongside aSc usually run both in parallel during transition.
What about migration of historic timetables?
Smootables supports structured import and AI-assisted extraction from spreadsheets and legacy exports. Historic timetables can be imported as reference; planning typically restarts from the next academic period.
Will planners need to relearn everything?
The core concepts are familiar: courses, groups, teachers, rooms, constraints, generation. The workflow is more planning-led and editing is more modern, but the conceptual model is recognizable to any aSc planner.
Does Smootables support the same level of constraint configuration?
Yes for the constraints that matter most: hard constraints on conflicts, capacity, availability, and dependencies; soft constraints for balance, gaps, preferences, and priorities. Some niche legacy switches are not replicated by design — they are usually handled by the planning model or AI workflows instead.
What if our current generation step is fast enough?
Generation speed is rarely the deciding factor. The bigger gain is the time before and after generation: validation that catches problems earlier, and editing that keeps the planner in control afterwards.