Well, now you're crossing over from a software question to a shop practices question :-) And there are probably many correct answers.
I've had my timbers sawn 1/2" over then surfaced to full dimension, and then mill ruled (that's the easiest, but most expensive). Or sawn full dimension, and surfaced to 1/2" under, then mill rule. Or sawn rough to full size, but planed "until smooth" in the shop, then square rule to 1/2" under. Right now, I'm working on an oak frame where the timbers were rough sawn to full dimension, then planed at the mill to a 1/4" under, and I'm square ruling to 1/2" under (trying to guess at how much each piece will shrink :-).
In my opinion, there's no need to model the square rule reductions on your shop drawings. Model the "perfect timber" inside, making sure to indicate the reference faces. Then, when doing layout, add the reductions on the fly where needed to bring the actual timber in line with the ideal timber shown on your shop drawings.
Regarding SU7, you can wish all you want, but the TF market couldn't be more insignificant to Google. CB.
