Define "comic accurate" if it doesn't look like gray tights with black panties over it. If you want Batman's suit to be "comic accurate," then it's gray cloth, a cloth cowl and cape made out of black or blue fabric, black or blue panties, cloth gloves, and boots.
The only things "innacurate" about this costume is that he probably does not have kevlar underneath the cloth, that the cowl is not attached to the cape, the gloves, and he does not have white lenses over his eyes. This is the ugly truth about tights-- they don't work the same way in real life as they do in comics. In comics, tights are pretty much painted on. They fill in every nook and cranny of a characters' anatomy, making their muscles look more dynamic than anything that's possible in real life unless vacuum sealing is involved. Real tights do no fill in the nooks and crannies, and instead stretch over them to smooth and flatten everything out. Someone may have washboard abs, but in a tight shirt it's all just going to look puffy.
The way tights look in comic has become more and more exaggerated over the decades, and it's gone from representing what was simply accepted as the pinnacle of costume design during a more archaic era of superheroes, to being some kind of otherworldy material that does not exist in real life which is poured over the muscles of characters with impossible muscular proportions. Fans might not like it, but they should turn their ire towards the comic artists who set their expectations so ridiculously high in the first place for what tights and undies should look like. As soon as you concede that something other than skin-tight fabric and a cloth cowl need to be used for the costume, you can no longer make the claim of being "comic book accurate." And if there's one thing that I know about fans, is that many of them value accuracy over practicality anyway so there's no point in chasing that chuck wagon.