I sometimes like to add a little more depth into my drawings than having single paths be of a single fill. In the illustration below, for example, I have two balls drawn.
The first was made the way I was taught. A stroke and fill - all consisting of one path. The second, I tried something different to help show more depth, but it consists of three paths. A black stroke with no fill, a dark red fill with no stroke, and a background red fill with no stroke. The first way was easier since I could add a stroke and fill to the same path, but I can't capture more details that way if extra colors touch the stroke. And if I were add paths on top of an object, then I would have to be too percise so they don't overlap the stroke. This second way, I at least have a stroke to draw behind.
Is this making sense to people? I want check here to see if there's an easier way to do this. Making an object that only consists of an outline and not a fills doesn't seem right if it is meant to include a fill. Any help?
To have multiple fills that way you need multiple paths. You may:
1) Create the basic (circular) path with no stroke and Ctrl/Cmd+C+F to make a copy in front;
2) Create the partially overlapping path with no stroke;
3) Select the copy path from 1) and the path from 2) and Pathfinder>Intersect (depending on version you may need to hold Alt/Option) to create the top path;
4) Group 1) and 3) and in the Appearance palette tick to select Group, then in the flyout tick Make New Stroke and drag it down below Contents and apply twice the Stroke Weight you want visible.
If you have corresponding multiple sets in the same Layer, you may apply the new stroke to the layer.
I would build this as a Live Paint object:
Now you are free to move the shadow line anywhere in the circle and the color areas will update automatically.
Live Paint is very powerful and is too often overlooked, in my opinion.
Thank you so much for your help! I never understood what the live paint bucket tool was for. I thought it was just an alternative way to add in symbols. I think that takes care of my problem.
You were helpful too, Jacob. Thank you!