Research dependent on future discovery?
There are research papers that are discovered 20-30 years later and new interesting research is build on it, thanks to the internet and digital indexing nowadays. So if you can (?) publish your research and live for it and can finance it, nothing speaks against following your interest and intuition (e.g. Einstein)

I will take an approach to also work on very risky, unknown, niche questions the next years, apart from working on a funded research project fulfilling some TRL levels required. This gives me some freedom of research and I think I have to risk it to yield some possible high-impact papers. Most tenured researchers always work on several topics:


you have to risk something in research (money, time, ...)
it's diversification of such risks
you are paid to find original new stuff in comparison to industry research, not just climb up the TRL ladder (although several TRL steps are not covered by industry research and developement)


But working solely on a very risky topic with unclear future outcome or likelihood of publication is like betting all your money on one stock.

No phyiscal simulation software I know matches nature exactly. How could it?! Nature is nonlinear and in complex systems with many degrees of freedom any model is imperfect if you don't simulate the H-atom. If your methods/models are original and of significance is hard to answer here without knowledge of your exact research topic.

To take up Nates comment, mathematical topology knowledge is nowadays of tremendous importance in modern solid state physics, although mathematicians work probably since centuries on it. 

If your research is only "useful" in dependence of progress in other related research areas/methods (as you seem to think and qualify), than it doesn't look like fundamental research to me, because you wouldn't and don't have to think about usefulness. Rather applied research, and without any people interested in it or its results, this could be riding a dead horse. 

In conclusion I think you have to make a strategic decision and risk assessment, if you want to do research on fundamental aspects/questions or move closer to the research methods/data/questions of your peers. Putting them as wrong or having a finite horizon is probably a dead end for you, also most of fundamental research ideas end like this. Currently your methodological approach and questions seem too distant for them. But doing and producing research that can be published in fundamental research vs. applied research journals is a huge career decision to make, as different requirements for significance and originality exist.